m-^ — — ^ — -^=. 

% gistusston on S!ai)t|oIbing. 
THREE LETTERS TO A CONSERVATIVE, 

BY 

GEORGE D. ARMSTRONG, D.D. 



'5 -^.-»^»5 

OF VIRGINIA. 



THREE CONSERVATIVE REPLIES, 



C. VAN RENSSELAER, D.D., 



OF NEW JERSEY. 



I. On the ScRiPTiTRAL Doctrine of Slaveholdixg. 
II. On Emancipation and the Church. 
III. On the Historical Argument for Slaveholding. 



TOGETHER WITH 



TWO REJOINDERS, 

On Slaveholdixg, Schemes of Emancipation, Colonization, Etc. 



PHILADELPHIA: 
JOSEPH M. WILSON, 111 SOUTH TENTH STREET. 

1858. 







Class ^^y-f 
Book -^'•;.W 



% §\smzm 011 Slahljolbing. 
THREE LETTERS TO A CONSERVATIVE, 



GEORGE Df'ARMSTEONG, D.D. 



OF VIRGINIA. 



THREE CONSERVATIVE REPLIES, 



C. VAN RENSSELAER, D.D., 



OP NEW JERSEY. 



I. On the Scriptural Doctrine of Slaveholding. 
11. On Emancipation and the Church. 
III. On the Historical Argument for Slaveholding. 



TOOETHER WITH 



TWO REJOINDERS, 

On Slaveholding, Schemes of Emancipation, Colonization, Etc. 



PHILADELPHIA: 
JOSEPH M. WILSOxX, 111 SOUTH TENTH STREET. 

1868. ^' 



% 



PREFACE. 



The Letters of Dr. Armstrong to Dr. Van Rensselaer were occasioned by a 
brief notice of Dr. Armstrong's book " On the Scripture Doctrine of Slavery," in 
the Presbyterian Magazine for September, 1857. 

Dr. Armstrong's Letters originally appeared in the " Central Presbyterian," 
published in Richmond, Va. They were afterwards transferred to the pages of 
the " Presbyterian Magazine ;" and the Replies by Dr. Van Rensselaer appeared 
simultaneously with each Letter, in three numbers of that periodical. 

The three Letters and the three Replies were printed in pamphlet form, in 
April last. But a copy having been sent to Dr. Armstrong before circulation, he 
objected to the publication of the Series without certain Rejoinders, which he pro- 
posed to publish in the Presbyterian Magazine, if permitted to do so. Permis- 
sion was granted ; and hence the publication of the pamphlet has been delayed 
until the Rejoinders and the Replies to them, have been finally issued. 

It is due to Dr. Armstrong to say that the delay has been principally owing to 
circumstances beyond the control of the Editor. 

It is also proper to add, for the information of strangers, that both the writers 
are ministers of the Presbyterian Church (Old School). 



;5 



DE. AEMSTRONG^S 
THREE LETTERS TO A CONSERVATIVE. 



LETTER I. 

ON THE PROPER STATEMENT OF TUB SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF 

SLAVERY. 

To THE Rev. C. Van Rensselaer, D.D. : The September num- 
ber of the "Presbyterian Magazine" contains a short review of 
several recently published works on Slavery, among others, of the 
" Christian Doctrine of Slavery." In the course of this review 
you express certain opinions, which, if I mistake not, constitute 
the peculiar creed of those who take the title of Conservatives, as 
contradistinguished from the Abolitionist, on the one hand, and 
what, they designate ^% i\iQ Pro-slavery man,^ ov^Xhe other. On 
these opinions I take the liberty of addressing you thus, through 
the press. 

Do not understand me as intending to find fault with your treat- 
ment of my book. The spirit in which you have reviewed it is all 
that I could desire, and the praise you have awarded it, more than' 
it deserves. But, 

1. The opinions you have expressed are not peculiar opinions of 
your own, but common to you with a large class of Christian men, 
especially in the Northern States. They are, therefore, matters 
of public interest, and may properly be made the subject of public 
discussion. 

2. Without any intention of controversy, either on your part or 
mine, the issues have fairly arisen between us in our published 
writings, for I have seldom seen the peculiar articles of Conserva- 
tism more distinctly and concisely presented than in your review. 
You give me credit for maintaining a "kind spirit," and for "fair- 

* I use these terms not intending thereby to admit the propriety of their popular 
application, but, simply, because they are thus applied. Were I to designate the 
three parties, with an eye to the true nature and origin of their creeds, I should call 
them the Philosophical — using the word philosophy in the sense of what Paul designates 
as "science falsely so called' (1 Tim. f) : 20), the Philosophico-Scriplural and the Scrip- 
tural. Whether such a designation would be a proper one, I submit to your judgment 
after you have read my letters. 



4 Dr. Armstrong's First Letter. 

ness," in writing on the subject of slavery. There is no need that 
I should "speak your praise" in the Presbyterian Church. As 
you truly say, " this delicate subject is growing in importance," 
and the discussion of it, in a Christian spirit, will do good, I be- 
lieve, and not evil. 

3. The points on which we differ lie entirely outside of the proper 
range of ecclesiastical action. Their discussion, therefore, cannot 
involve any "agitation" of the Church, though their decision in 
such a way that we all shall "see eye to eye" — if such a thing be 
possible — would greatly promote Christian sympathy among God's 
people, and advance the prosperity of Zion. 

I heartily sympathize with you in the wish with which you close 
your article, that our Church shall not change "the scriptural 
position" which she has assumed on the subject of slavery. When 
she declared, in answer to certain memorials asking her to make 
slaveholding a subject of discipline, "Since Christ and his inspired 
Apostles did not make slaveholding a bar to communion, we, as a 
court of OJirist, have no authority to do so; since they did not 
attempt to remove it from the Church by legislation, we have no 
authority to legislate on the subject" (see Digest, p. 813), she made 
a deliverance on slavery which covers all proper ground of eccle- 
siastical action, and a deliverance perfectly satisfactory, in so far 
as I know, to our whole Church at the South. This "scriptural 
position" has secured for her peace in the midst of abounding con- 
tention; and I can wish, "for Zion's sake," she may ever maintain 
that position. 

Outside of the proper range of ecclesiastical action, however, 
there are points on which good men may honestly differ. Such 
are the points to which I propose directing your attention in the 
present letters. 

1. We differ respecting the proper statement of the doctrine of 
scripture respecting slavery. 

Your statement of that doctrine is, — " Slavery is not necessarily 
and in all circumstances sinful." — {Pres. Mag. p. 422.) 

My statement of it is, — "Slaveholding is not a sin in the sight 
of God, and is not to be accounted an ^offence' by his Church." — 
{Chn. Doc. Slav. p. 8.) 

Taking your statement, in connection with your expressed wish 
that our Church should not change the position she has assumed 
on the subject of slavery, a fair interpretation of it must make it 
cover, in so far as ecclesiastical action is concerned, all that mine 
does. Yet, no one can read the two, when thus placed side by side, 
without feeling that they differ, at least in tone and spirit. And 
I now raise the question : Which statement of the doctrine best ac- 
cords ivith the teaching and spirit of the Word of Grod? 

That we may answer this question intelligently let us look at it, — 

First, As a statement, in general terms, of a conclusion from 
admitted, scriptural, premises. 

The statement of these premises in the " Christian Doctrine of 



The Scriptural Doctrine of Slavery. 5 

Slavery," pp. 102, 103, a statement to which you do not object, is 
in these terms : "In our examination of what the New Testament n^ 
teaches on the subject of slavery, we have found, 1, That slave- 
holding does not appear in any catalogue of sins or 'offences' given 
us by inspired men ; 2, That the Apostles received slaveholders 
into the Christian Church, and continued them therein, without 
giving any intimation, either at the time of their reception or after- 
wards, that slaveholding was a sin or an 'offence;' 3, That Paul 
sent back a fugitive slave to his own master again, and assigned 
as his reason for so doing, that master's right to the services of 
his slave; 4, That the Apostles frequently enjoin the relative duties 
of master and slave, and enforce their injunctions upon both alike, 
as Christian men, by Christian motives, uniformly teaching certain 
evils which they sought to correct, as incidental evils, and not 'part 
and parcel' of slavery itself; 5, That Paul treated the distinctions 
which slavery creates as matters of very little importance, in so 
far as the inteyests of the Christian life are concerned; 6, That he 
declares that this his doctrine respecting the relation of slave and 
master, is wholesome doctrine, and according to godliness, and the 
doctrine of the Lord Jesus Christ; 7, And directs Christian minis- 
ters to teach it in the Church, and prohibits the teaching of any 
doctrine at variance with it, under the most solemn sanctions known 
to the Church." 

Such are the premises, — fairly stated. What is a proper state- 
ment, in general terms, of the logical conclusion therefrom ? Is it 
simply, " Slavery is not necessarily and in all circumstances sin- 
ful?" Or, is it, "Slaveholding is not a sin in the sight of God, 
and is not to be accounted an 'offence' by his Church?" 

Second, Let us look for a decision in a different direction, and 
ask, which statement best accords with the tone and spirit in which 
the scriptural deliverances on this subject are made ? 

And here, without examining each of the several passages which 
might be quoted, let us turn, at once, to that which of all others 
may most properly be appealed to, to decide the question, viz. : 
1 Tim. 6 : 1-5. Here inspired Paul is giving instruction to Timo- 
thy, a minister of the Gospel, respecting what he should teach, and 
"how he ought to behave himself" in the Church of God. For this 
reason we are bound to consider this as the instruction of the One 
Head of the Church to the ministers of that Church respecting 
their duty as teachers and rulers in the Church, i. e., it is express 
instruction to us on the very point we are examining. 

" Let as many servants {douloi), as are under the yoke, count 
their own masters {despotas) worthy of all honour, that the name 
of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have 
believing masters [despotas) let them not despise them because 
they are brethren ; but rather do them service, because they are 
faithful and beloved partakers of the benefit. These things teach 
and exhort. If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to 



6 Br. Armstrong s First Letter. 

wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to 
the doctrine which is according to godliness, he is proud, knowing 
nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof 
Cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, perverse disputings 
of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that 
gain is godliness, — from such ivitlidrmv thyself.''' 

Is there no discord to your ear between Paul's "certain sound," 
" wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the 
doctrine which is according to godliness," and such quavering notes 
as " not necessarily" and in all " circumstances ?" Or, — Take the 
whole passage, read it over carefully, examine each of its several 
clauses, try not simply to get at the truth it contains, but try to 
catch the spirit of the passage ; and then, make a deliverance on 
slavery, in general terms, and see if it will assume the form, — 
" Slavery is not 7iecessarily and in all circumstances a sin ;" or, 
" Slaveholding is not a sin in the sight of God, and is not to be 
accounted an ' offence' by his Church." 

You may say, the two statements mean substantially the same 
thing. Even granting that such is the intention of those who 
use them, I object to your statement, because, — 1. It is an unusual 
form of stating ethical propositions such as this, and though it is 
broad enough to acquit the slaveholding member of the Church, it 
gives to his acquittal a sort of " whip, and clear him" air — pardon 
my use of this homely expression : I can find no other which will 
so well convey the exact idea I wish to give utterance to — which 
seems to me, in contrast with all the New Testament deliverances 
on the subject. 

2. When taken apart from all explanations — and every general 
proposition should be so expressed as to bear such examination — 
it does not fairly cover all the ground which the doctrine of Christ 
and his inspired Apostles covers. 

I know — I think — your objections to such a statement of the 
doctrine as I am contending for ; and, if I am right as to what 
those objections are, a little impartial, ingenuous examination will 
satisfy you that they are all groundless. You, probably, would 
ask, — 

1. Does not the statement *' slaveholding is not a sin in the sight 
of God, and is not to be accounted an ' offence' by his Church," 
involve the idea that all slaveholding is sinless in the sight of God ? 
I answer, by no means. When we affirm that marriage is not a 
sin in the sight of God, we do not mean, nor are we understood to 
affirm that all marriages are lawful — marriages contracted within 
the " prohibited degrees," for example. As the proposition is one 
based upon the law of God, the marriage to which alone it properly 
applies, must subsist in accordance with the requirements of that 
law. There is a slaveholding which the Word of God teaches us 
is " consistent with Christian character and profession (that is, 
consistent with justice, mercy, holiness, love to God and love to 



Tlie Scriptural Doctrine of Slavery. 7 

man)." Hodge. The nature of this slaveholding, the law of God de- 
fines. When, then, we state the proposition that " slaveholding is 
not a sin in the sight of God," it can properly apply to such slave- 
holding only as subsists in conformity Avith the law of God. 

2. Does not such a statement involve the idea of the perpetuity 
of slavery ? I answer, by no means. When we affirm that des- 
potic government in France, at the present day — demanded, as I 
believe, and I doubt not you do too, by the general good of the 
French nation — is not sinful in the sight of God ; or, when we give 
utterance to a more general proposition, yet covering this particular 
case, and say, civil government is ordained of God ; we do not 
mean to affirm, nor does any man understand us as affirming, the 
perpetuity of despotic government in that country. The time may 
come when the general good will demand a different form of govern- 
ment for France, and there is nothing in the general truth ex- 
pressed in the proposition, "civil government is ordained of God," 
to forbid the French nation, when that time does come, taking 
measures to secure a different form of government for themselves, 
in any lawful way. 

3. It is conceded, on all hands, that there are incidental evils 
attaching to slavery as it exists in this country, and in our day. 
Will not such a statement of the doctrine be so misunderstood 
by many, as to render them indifferent to the removal of those 
evils ? Here, again, I answer by no means. And I answer thus 
confidently, because I feel that I have firm ground upon which to 
stand. 

The Word of God is the standard in Christian ethics. Its de- 
liverances are the result of a better than human wisdom, — better, 
not only as a superior wisdom, but as a wisdom guided and governed 
by perfect benevolence. If, then, the Word of God makes its de- 
liverances in a certain way, I knoiv that that is the best way — the 
way in which the truth will soonest and most certainly work out 
its appropriate result. Paul has written some things on the subject 
of slavery, which, judging from what we see throughout our land, 
" are hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and 
unstable will wrest as they do also the other scriptures." (2 Pet. 
3 : 16.) But of this we may rest assured. We will never mend 
the matter in this particular, by attempting to improve upon the 
deliverances of the Word of God. 

Geo. D. Armstrong. 



LETTER 11. 

EMANCIPATION AND THE CHURCH. 

To THE Rev. C. Van Rensselaer : Having examined the ques- 
tion — What is a proper statement of the Scripture doctrine of 
slavery? — I will now ask your attention to another point on which 
we differ, viz. : 

II. The proper work of the Church — the object and end which 
she is to keep in view in her labours for and with the slave race in 
our country. And let me ask you to especially note the fact, that 
it is the work of the Church, and not the work of the Christian 
citizen, in his character as a citizen, about which I raise a ques- 
tion. 

On this point — 

You write — " We regard the Christian instruction and elevation 
of the slaves as a means to an end, and that end is the recovery of 
the blessings of personal liberty, when Providence opens the way 
for it. The higher end is the salvation of their souls." {Pres. 
3Iag. p. 422.) 

I have written — " In the case of a race of men in slavery, the 
ivork which God has appointed his Church — as we learn it, both 
from the example and the precepts of inspired men — is to labour to 
secure in them a Christian life on earth and meetness for his hea- 
venly kingdom." {Chn. Doc. Sla. p. 131.) 

What you have set forth as ^^the higher end" of Christian in- 
struction, is just what I hold to be the one end at which the Church 
is to aim. As to this end then we agree. 

We differ in that you teach that the Church, in addition to this, 
should aim at securing for the slave — in your own language — " the 
blessing of persotial liberty ^ ivhen Providence opens the way for 
it:' 

Before entering upon the examination of the point of real differ- 
ence between us, I must strip your proposition of the adventitious 
support it derives from the terms in which you have expressed it. 
And I shall do this the more carefully, and, if possible, distinctly. 



Emancipation and the Church. 9 

because you have expressed it in the same terms in which I have 
often seen it expressed before ; and, if I mistake not, it is mainly 
through the influence of this adventitious support it has found 
favour among good men. 

1. On the phrase — " the blessings of personal liberty'' — listen 
to Samuel Nott, whose " Slavery and the Remedy" you so highly 
commend. " Unhappily, this question of well-being, is kept out of 
sight amidst the earnest discussions of the times. Personal free- 
dom is assumed as an absolute good, and in this ' petitio principii' 
the great question of practical well-being is altogether overlooked. 
Admit the evil to be such that no man can rightly reduce another 
man to slavery, any more than to poverty, sickness, or broken 
bones ; admit that slavery as it is has more woes than belong to a 
merely servile condition, and demanding the speediest possible re- 
medy ; it does not follow hence, that the whole condition of the en- 
slaved requires to be changed, without discrimination of the evil 
and the good. You must remove the evil, but you must not re- 
move the good; you must remove the injurious and destructive, but 
you must not remove the beneficial and conservative. A Christian 
State, philanthropic and patriarchal, is bound to abolish just so ^ 
much of slavery as it is, as is injurious, and no more ; to retain just 

so much as is beneficial, and no less ; seeking in very deed the well- 
being of the enslaved race, and that common good in which alone 
their welfare can be found." (pp. 24, 25.) 

2. On the phrase — " ivhen Providence shall open the way for 
it" — I remark. Providence never does " open the way" — in the 
sense in which you use that expression — for any change, unless 
•well-being is to be promoted thereby. In writing, then, in terms 
which imply that Providence will open the way for the slave's re- 
covering his personal freedom — for you write, ^'■when Providence 
shall," and not if Providence shall — you are assuming a second 
time the controverted point, "that personal freedom is an absolute 
good." 

Strip your proposition of this double petitio principii, and it will 
stand, — We regard the Christian instruction of the slaves, as a 
means to an end, and that end is their emancipation before very 
long. 

Here I take issue with you. I affirm that the question of the 
emancipation of the slave is one with which " Christian instruction," 
i. e. the instruction of the Church — for so the "higher end" you 
mention requires me to understand that phrase — has nothing di- 
rectly to do. The Church has no right to set before herself such 
an end, as an end either higher or lower, of her labours. 

You and I hold one opinion respecting the nature of the Church. 
The Church is no Voluntary Society, constituted by man, and there- y 
fore, liable to be modified and fashioned at his will. It is the king- 
dom of the Lord Jesus Christ. From him it derives its charter. 
His word is its law. By his instructions the Church is to abide, 

k 



10 JDr. At'mstrojig' s Second Letter. 

teaching all that he has commanded ; and where he has given no 
command, placing her hand upon her lips. 

On this matter of emancipation, Christ has given no command to 
his Church. The Word of God contains no deliverance, either ex- 
press or clearly implied, respecting it. Hence, I affirm, the Church 
has no right to make a deliverance respecting it; much less, to set 
it before herself as an end of her labours. For an examination of 
1 Cor. 7:21, "if thou mayest be made free, use it rather," — I 
refer you to the " Chn. Doc. Slav.," especially the remarks on pp. 
71-74. 

The question of emancipation is a question concerning civil rights, 
"^ and the relations of capital and labour, and is therefore essentially 
a political and not a religious question. And the Bible treats it 
just as it treats all other questions of the same kind, — it makes no 
deliverance on the subject, but leaves it to be determined by the 
State, in view of her responsibility to God for the well-being of the 
subject ; the Church having no right to interfere. 

So important does the observance of this distinction between the 
proper province of the Church and the State appear to me, espe- 
cially at the present time, that I have discussed the subject at some 
length in the " Christian Doctrine of Slavery." Let me apply the 
principles there laid down to the two points in which we differ. 
Christ requires the Church to teach that the relations which slavery 
establishes are not sinful relations ; and to teach the duties which 
grow out of those relations, to masters and slaves alike, and by 
her discipline to enforce the discharge of those duties, in so far as 
her members are concerned. Here her duty ceases. Does any 
member of the Church believe that slavery is a political evil ? — as 
a teacher and ruler in the Church, I have no difference with him. 
Does he teach this his faith, but teach it somewhere else than in 
the pulpit ? — I have no difference with him. Does he, availing 
himself of the rights which belong to a citizen in a republic, act 
and vote in accordance with this, his faith ? — I have no difference 
with him. And on the other hand. Does another believe that sla- 
very is a political good, and teach and act upon this, his faith ? — I 
have no more difference with him than I had with the former. So 
with respect to emancipation. Does any Christian citizen believe 
that he ought to aim at the ultimate or even speedy emancipation 
of the slaves in our Southern States ? — I have no difference with 
him on this account. Does he teach and labour to carry into effect 
these his views, in a lawful way ? — I have no difference with him. 
And on the other hand, Does another believe that he ought to aim 
at the perpetuation of slavery, and teach and act upon this his 
faith, provided he does it lawfully ? — I have no difference with him 
therefor. These are all questions which lie outside the province of 
the Church. Anti-slavery and pro-slavery men, if the terms anti- 
slavery and pro-slavery be understood to refer to the question of 
v^ expediency, or political good and evil, may all be alike worthy 



Emancipation and the Church. 11 

members of the Church. Differences on such points as these should 
no more interfere with their hearty co-operation in building up the / 
kingdom of God in the world, than differences respecting the tariff, 
or the distribution of the public lands. But does any man, anti- 
slavery or pro-slavery, attempt to bring these matters into the 
Church, that he may get from the Church a decision, or enlist the * 
Church in the cause he has espoused, I meet him at the threshold 
with the Master's command : " Render unto Cresar the things 
that are Cossar's," as well as "unto God the things that are God's." 
(Matt. 22 : 21.) 

The commission Christ has given his Church, " Go ye into all 
the tvorld, and preach the Gospel to evert/ creature" requires her 
to preach that Gospel to the slave as well as the master. The in- 
evitable effect, an effect which God designed, of this preaching, 
when faithfully done, must be the elevation of those to whom it is 
preached. But this truth no more necessarily implies the disap- 
pearance of slavery than it does the disappearance of poverty from 
among men. If, in time, the well-being of the slave — well-being y/ 
in the highest and most comprehensive sense of that phrase — re- 
quires his emancipation, his emancipation will just as certainly take 
place as that God rules. And just as firmly as I believe this, do 
I believe, that when it comes, if come it does, as national indepen- 
dence came to our country, it will come without any violation of 
that order which God has established in the world ; and hence, 
through the agency of the State, and not that of the Church. 

You cannot be ignorant of the fact that the question of emanci- 
pation is a question surrounded with many difficulties — and let me 
add, difficulties which grow out of the obligation to provide for the 
well-being of the slave, far more than the master — and is a question 
upon which good and wise men honestly differ. Bishop Hopkins, 
of Vermont, for example, in his "American Citizen," a work which 
does credit alike to his head and his heart, contends for ultimate j^ 
emancipation. Rev. Samuel Nott, of Massachusetts (and I pur- 
posely take cases from among the inhabitants of non-slaveholding 
States), of whom you speak as "a returned missionary, one of the 
earliest of the self-sacrificing band who went forth to the heathen," 
and who, hence, may fairly be presumed to be a godly man, and 
one practically acquainted with man in a degraded condition, on 
the other hand, in his "Slavery and the Remedy," takes opposite 
ground ; and all his remedial suggestions are predicated upon the 
perpetuation of slavery in the Southern States. These men, no 
doubt, honestly differ ; and they have a right to differ here, with- 
out the Church calling either in question for his opinion. 

You will now see clearly the grounds upon which I object to 
your opinion. They are : 

1st. It determines what the Word of God leaves undetermined. 
In this it is extra- scriptural. 

2d. It calls for uniformity of opinion where Christ allows liberty. 
In this it is uuBcriptural. 



12 Dr. Armstrong' s Second Letter. 

3d. It obtrudes the Church into the province which God has as- 
signed to the State. In this it is anti-scriptural. 

You will see, too, why in the " Christian Doctrine of Slavery," 
you could find no expression of opinion on the subject of emancipa- 
tion. There was no expression of opinion there. I expressly dis- 
claimed the intention of treating slavery as a civil or political ques- 
tion. That had been done by others far more ably than I could 
hope to do it ; and I had nothing new to offer on the subject. A 
brief and faithful exhibition of what Christ and his Apostles taught, 
«. e., a discussion of slavery as a religious question, it seemed to 
me might do good ; and to this I pledged myself in the " Preface." 
The responsibility resting upon the preacher, in the pulpit, and the 
expositor of Scripture — whether his exposition be monographic or 
general — when writing for the press, is a very solemn responsibi- 
lity. His duty is clearly set forth in the words : " Son of man, I 
have made thee a watchman unto the house of Israel : therefore 
hear the word at my mouth, and give them warning from me." 
(Ezek. 3 : 17.) The mixture of human opinions Avith God's truth 
has been one grand source of the evil which the Church has suf- 
fered in connection W'ith this very matter ; of this, I shall take oc- 
casion to speak more fully in my last letter. 

Your testimony — " On this point {i. e. emancipation) he is less 
explicit and full than we could desire. Indeed, his cautious lan- 
guage in one paragraph indicates a timidity and uncertainty entire- 
ly uncalled for ; and some might even suppose that his views were 
either indifferent to emancipation, or even opposed to it. This we 
do not believe ; but the paragraph reminds us of the doctrine of 
the Puseyites, who at times practise reserve in the communication 
of religious knowledge" — I was glad to receive : and I can well 
afford to pardon the lack of holiday dress in which the messenger 
presents himself, for the sake of the tidings which he brings. 

In concluding this letter, let me say — Do not confound the cause 
of Liberian Colonization, with the question respecting the general, 
ultimate emancipation of the slaves in our Southern States. The 
ground upon which our ablest Christians, philanthropists, and states- 
men have advocated that cause would remain, even if it were de- 
termined that a general emancipation would never take place. 

On this point, Bishop Hopkins has well written — " That a portion 
of the slaves will always be found worthy to be emancipated, as 
being possessed of more industry and talent than the average, is 
doubtless true, and such cases may safely be trusted to their mas- 
ter's liberality, or to the interest which they rarely fail to excite 
amongst others. That there is another portion likely to be dissatis- 
fied and refractory is also true, and the number of slaves who run 
away affords the evidence. But there are exceptions to the general 
rule, about as numerous, perhaps, as the cases amongst the free 
labourers of other countries, where a few, possessed of extraordinary 
energy, are seen to rise up from a very low beginning, and another 



Emancipation and the Church. 13 

few prove worthy of the penitentiary ; while the vast majority con- 
tinue where they were, through the slavery of circumstances^ which 
proves to be about as strong as any other kind of bondage, amongst 
the masses of mankind. For that portion who desire and are quali- 
fied for freedom, our Southern philanthropists have provided, of 
their own accord, the noble colony of Liberia, now advanced so far 
as to be an object of great interest among the nations." American 
Citizen, pp. 134, 135. 

Here is ground upon which the Christian philanthropist who 
believes that the general emancipation of the slaves in our Southern 
States will never take place, may yet consistently advocate the 
cause of Liberia. And let me add — if we believe the testimony of 
such men as Dr. J. L. Wilson (see his " Western Africa"), and other 
judicious pious men who have been in Liberia — that colony is likely 
to receive accessions from this source alone, as large as she will be 
able to receive with safety to herself, for years to come : and no 
more disastrous event could occur to her, at the present time, than 
the landing upon her shore, not fifty but even five thousand eman- 
cipated slaves per annum, as has been proposed in some of the 
schemes of emancipation which find favour with good men, espe- 
cially in the Northern States. 

George D. Armstrong. 



LETTER III. 

HISTORICAL VIEW OF ANTI-SLAVERY OPINIONS. 

To THE Rev. C. Van Rensselaer, D.D. : In my former letters 
I have examined the two articles which make up the peculiar 
creed of the conservative, as he is called. In the present, I will 
ask your attention to certain facts in the history of Anti-slavery 
opinions ; and this, for the sake of the practical lesson which they 
teach. 
< Bishop Hopkins, in his "American Citizen," after briefly ex- 
hibiting the scriptural proof that slaveholding is not a sin, writes : 
" If we go on from the days of the Apostles to examine the doc- 
trine and practice of the Christian Church, we find no other views 
entertained on the subject. Slavery continued to exist in every 
quarter. Slaves were held, without any reproach, even by the 
•'^.fcf bishops and clergy. When the practice died out, as it did in many 

"^ of the European nations, the change was gradual, through the 

operation of worldly causes, and without any suspicion that the 
institution, in itself, involved a violation of religion or morality. 
Hence its lawfulness with respect to the African and the Indians 
taken in war, was universally maintained by the Puritan settlers of 
New England, who claimed the closest adherence in all things to 
the teachings of the Scriptures. And it was not until the latter 
part of the eighteenth century that a doubt was expressed, on either 
side of the Atlantic, in relation to the perfect consistency of such 
slavery with the precepts of the Gospel." 

"Since that time, indeed, public opinion, both in Old and New 
England, has undergone a great revolution. But this cannot be 
attributed to the Bible, nor to the Church, nor to any new know- 
ledge of the will of God, nor to the discovery of any unknown 
principles of moral action. All that belongs to these' was perfectly 
familiar to the Christian world from the days of the Apostles. 
And therefore no intelligent and candid mind can be surprised to 
, find that the most violent opponents of slavery in the United States 
are always ready to wrest the Bible and denounce the Church, 
because they cannot derive from either the slightest real supports 



Tlie Mistorieal Argument for Slavery. 15 

in their assaults against the lawfulness of the institution." (pp. 129, 
130.) 

The correctness of this brief history of the progress of Anti- 
slavery opinions, no one, I presume, will seriously question. And 
the point to which I would, now, particularly call your attention, is 
that presented in the words — "zY," i. e., this change, '•'' caimot he 
attributed to the Bible, nor to the Church." It was not from the 
Bible these opinions originated ; it was not in the Church they first 
saw the light. 

Whence are they? I answer: They can be distinctly traced 
back to their origin in that infidel philosophy on the subjects of 
civil government and human liberty, which, becoming popular in 
the latter half of the last century, had its culmination, in the one 
direction, in the French revolution, and in the other, in the disas- 
trous emancipation effected in the British West India Islands : a 
philosophy which substitutes for the Bible account of the origin of 
civil government in the family, the theory of the "civil compact," 
as it has been called ; and confounds human liberty Avith unbridled 
license. 

You are familiar with the classic story of the fall of Troy ; — how, 
concealed in a wooden horse, consecrated to Diana, the enemy found 
admission into that doomed city. In a way very similar has this 
infidel philosophy found admission into the Church of God. Of 
the mischief it has already wrought there, in rending the Church, 
in making enemies of those who should be friends, in prostituting 
the pulpit and desecrating the Sabbath by substituting the preach- 
ing of politics in the place of the Gospel, there is no need that I 
should tell you. 

This heresy — for surely, I do it no wrong when I apply to it the 
name of heresy — has made its most insidious approaches, and 
gained its most dangerous advantages, by subtly mingling its errors 
with God's truths, in our popular expositions of Scripture. As it 
is here, in the permanent printed page, its progress can be traced 
with least danger of falling into error, let me ask you to compare 
the exposition of a passage of Scripture bearing on ths subjeci of 
slavery, written before this infidel philosophy, "this science, falsely 
so called" obtained currency, with one written after it had begun 
to prevail, and another written in this, our day. 

Let us take a part of the passage to which attention has been 
already turned in my first letter, viz., 1 Tim. 6:2, " And they 
that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because 
they are brethren ; but rather do them service, because they are 
faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach 
and exhort." 

Turn now to Matthew Henry's Exposition, written early in the 
last century, and you will read : " Or suppose the master were a 
Christian and a believer, and the servant a believer too ; would not 
that excuse him, because in Christ there is neither bond nor free ? 



16 Dr. Armstrong's Third Letter, 

No, by no means, for Jesus Christ did not come to dissolve the bond 
of civil relation, but to strengthen it : The>/ that have believing 
masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; for 
that brotherhood relates only to spiritual privileges, not to any out- 
ward dignity or advantage (those misunderstand and abuse their 
religion, who make it a pretence for denying the duties that they 
owe to their relations) ; nay, rather do them service, because they 
are faithful and beloved. They must think themselves the more 
obliged to serve them, because the faith and love which bespeak 
men Christians, oblige them to do good ; and that is all wherein 
their service consists. Observe, It is a great encouragement to us 
in doing our duty to our relations, if we have reason to think they 
are faithful and beloved, and partakers of the benefit, that is, of 
the benefit of Christianity. Again, Believing masters and servants 
are brethren, and partakers of the benefit ; for in Christ Jesus 
there is neither bond nor free, for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 
(Gal. 3 : 28.) Timothy is appointed to teach and exhort these things. 
Ministers must preach, not only the general duties of all, but the 
duties of particular relations," 

Here, all is plain, straightforward exposition of the text. The 
author evidently writes with a " single eye" to the exhibition of 
" the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" contained 
in the passage of Scripture he is expounding. 

Dr. Thomas Scott wrote his Commentary about the close of the 
last century; the first edition was published in 1796. Let us look, 
now, at his exposition of this passage ; and, I select the Com- 
mentary of Scott, because the unquestioned piety of the man, and 
the general excellence of his work, render the peculiarity to which 
I would direct attention, all the more conspicuous. 

"And such of them," i. <?., 'servants,' as enjoy the privilege 
of ' believing masters,' ought by no means to despise them, or 
withhold from them due respect and obedience ; because they were 
brethren in Christ, and so upon a level in respect of religious pri- 
vileges ; but rather * to do them service' with double diligence 
and cheerfulness, because of their faith in Christ, and their in- 
terest in his love, as partakers of the inestimable benefit of his 
salvation. This shows that Christian masters were not required 
to set their slaves at liberty." 

Thus far, all is plain, straightforward exposition of what Paul 
has written. If any man will gainsay it, his controversy is not 
with Dr. Scott, the expositor, but with inspired Paul, the author. 
But Scott adds, " though they were instructed to behave towards 
them in such a manner as would greatly lessen and nearly anni- 
hilate the evils of slavery." Here the influence of this false phi- 
losophy begins to appear ; — and I object to this statement, not 
simply on the ground that it is not in the text, but mainly, be- 
cause it is a partial statement of truth, and thus, practical error. 
Paul never uses such paltering terms as "greatly lessen" and 



« 



Tlie Historical Argument for Slavery. 17 

" nearly annihilate," when dealing with the master respecting his 
" behaviour" toward his slaves. That we may see how Paul does 
deal with this subject, turn to Col. 6 : 1, and read — " Masters, 
give unto your servants that wliich is just and equal ; knowing 
that ye also have a Master in heaven." See also Eph. 6 : 9. 
Paul is here enjoining their relative duties upon masters and ser- 
vants, along with husbands and wives, parents and children, and 
he enjoins these duties upon all alike, as Christians, by Christian 
motives. But he knows well that the natural affections do not 
afford as efficient protection to the slave as they do to the wife and 
the child, and hence — when he comes to deal with the master, he 
cites him at once before our common "Master in heaven," and in 
that awful presence he charges him, in view of the solemnities of 
the judgment — " give unto your servants that which is just and 
equal" — all, "that is just and equal." Now let this Christian 
master go back to his house or plantation again, and he will not 
be satisfied to "greatly alleviate," or " nearly annihilate" any evil 
which concerns his "behaviour" to his servants; he will seek to 
remove it altogether. 

Scott adds, yet further — "It would have excited much confusion, 
awakened the jealousy of the civil powers, and greatly retarded 
the progress of Christianity, had the liberation of slaves by their 
converts been expressly required by the Apostles : though the 
principles of both the law and the Gospel, when carried to their 
consequences, will infallibly abolish slavery." Here, this philoso- 
phy shows itself more distinctly. There is nothing of all this in 
the text. Taking the most favourable view of the case for the ex- 
positor, we say — It is not Paul's truth, it is Dr. Scott's opinion. 
And yet, appearing where it does, most readers will take it all as 
if it were the teaching of Scripture. 

And it places the teaching of Christ and his Apostles on the 
subject of slavery altogether in a wrong light. The amount of 
this apology which Scott offers for this conduct, is well stated by 
Dr. Hodge (see his " Essays and Reviews," pp. 488, 489), in the 
words — " It amounts to this. Christ and his Apostles thought 
slaveholding a great crime, but they abstained from saying so for 
fear of the consequences. The very statement of the argument, 
in its naked form, is its refutation." Thus has the Commentary of 
so excellent a man as Dr. Scott been, here, " spoiled through his 
philosophy." (Col. 2 : 8.) 

Turn we now to an Exposition written in our day, when this 
philosophy has "run to seed ;" the " Notes on the New Testa- 
ment," by Rev. A. Barnes ; and that I may do him no injustice, 
I shall give so much of his "Notes" as I quote, just as I find them 
printed, italics, punctuation, and all. My edition is that of the 
Harpers, 1853. 

" 2. And they that have believing masters. Masters who are 
Christians. It is clear from this, that Paul supposed that, at that 

2 



18 Br. Armstrong' s Third Letter. 

time, and under those circumstances, a man might become a Chris- 
tian who had slaves under him. How long he might continue to 
hold his fellow men in bondage, and yet be a Christian, is, how- 
ever, quite a diiferent question." 

Dr. Barnes's " at that time, and in those circumstances," is a 
bowshot beyond Dr. Scott's " greatly alleviate and nearly annihi- 
late," and yet there is a family likeness between them, that strikes 
you at a glance. 

" And yet he a Christian." Had Dr. Barnes been a professed 
Arminian, I should have understood him here, as referring to a 
threatening probability of "falling from grace:" but, as he 
claims to be a Calvinist, I see not how I can fairly interpret his 
language, unless I understand that these Christian slaveholders 
were only a sort o^ quasi Christians, after all ; admitted into "the 
kingdom of God" in some such way as " mourners" are admitted 
into the Methodist Church — on probation — and not to be allowed 
to continue there unless they shortly renounced their slavehold- 
ing. Perhaps Dr. Barnes would say — such quasi Christians would 
answer " at that time and under those circumstances" — and cer- 
tainly, all will agree with him, that this might just as well be, as 
that Christians should come into that kingdom at all, holding on 
to a sin worse than " piracy and murder." 

" Because they are faithful, that is because they are believers or 
are Christians — pistoi; the same word which in the beginning of 
the verse is rendered believing. It does not here mean, that they 
were faithful to their servants or their God, but merely that they 
were Christians." 

A strange sort of Christians these Ephesians must have been, 
who were not '-'■ faithful" to, i. e., ''''believers" in — for so Dr. 
Barnes interprets the word faithful as used by Paul ; and his 
marking it here with quotation marks, requires us to understand 
him as taking it from Paul's writing — their servants or their God. 
I do not know that I get exactly Dr. Barnes's idea — but a man 
who did not "believe in servants, or in G6d," I should call an 
Abolition atheist. Now, if these Ephesians, while they were slave- 
holders, w^ere at heart Abolition atheists — the wonder is, not that 
they could enter the " kingdom of God" on no better terms than 
probationers, but that they could enter that kingdom at all. 

But, enough — though there are some eight pages of these Notes 
on this passage in 1 Tim., over which one might well make merry, 
were it not so sad a thing to see the Word of God thus handled. 

What is the principle which lies at the foundation of all such 
exposition of Scripture as this ? — I will give it you in the very 
words of the Expositor himself: "I believe that there are great 
principles in our nature, as God has made us ; which can never be 
set aside by any authority of a pretended revelation ; and that if 
a book professing to be a revelation from God, by any fair inter- 
pretation defended slavery, or placed it on the same basis as the 



The Historical Argument for Slavery. 19 

relation of husband and wife, parent and child, guardian and ward, 
such a book neither ought to be, nor could be received by mankind 
as a divine revelation." (Barnes's " Church and Slavery," p. 193.) 
And such notes as those I have quoted are the ravings of a man 
'• doting" {noson, sick), 1 Tim. 6 : 4, from feeding on this philoso- 
phy, and in his delirium, sitting down to tinker the word of God, 
as wiser and holier than He. 

In commenting on Paul's expression "wholesome words," Mat- 
thew Henry makes this weighty remark : " We observe (1), The 
words of our Lord Jesus Christ are wholesome words ; they are the 
fittest to prevent or heal the Church's wounds, as well as to heal 
a wounded conscience : for Christ has the tongue of the learned, 
to speak a word in season to him that is weary. (Isa. 1 : 4.) The 
words of Christ are the best to prevent ruptures in the Church ; 
for none who profess faith in him, will dispute the aptness or au- 
thority of his words, who is their Lord and teacher ; and it has 
never gone well with the Church, since the ivords of men have 
claimed a regard equal to his words, and in some cases a much 
greater.'" That last clause may have hQQn prophecy, when Henry 
wrote it ; it is history now. 

Near the close of your article you write : " We believe that one 
of the providential calls on the Old School Presbyterian Church is 
to stand in the gap — to oppose unscriptural and fanatical extra- 
vagance in the North and in the South, in the East and in the 
West. Being on scriptural ground, we must not recede from it, 
either from fear of abolition clamour on the one hand or of slavery 
propagandism on the other." That is a noble Christian utterance. 
Let us thank God that the " old blue banner" does float " in the 
gap ;" for though there may be many a time-honoured standard in 
the field, there is none fitter to float "in the gap" than that which 
bears as its escutcheon " Christ's crown." 

" Christ's Cro'wn." Methinks the host marshalled under such 
a banner should have loyal hearts, and willingly submit themselves, 
in all things, to his rule : fighting just where he has placed 
them, and just as he has given them orders, trying to catch his 
spirit, ever watching his eye. 

GEORaE D. Armstrong. 



DR. VAN RENSSELAER'S 



THUEE REPLIES 



DR. ARMSTRONG, 



THE SUBJECT OF SLAVERY. 



THREE CONSERVATIVE REPLIES. 



REPLY I. 



ON THE PROPER STATEMENT OF THE SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OE 

SLAVERY. 

To THE Rev. George D. Armstrong, D.D. : Your three Letters 
on Slavery have been read by me with great interest. They cover 
ground, not often distinctly included in the field of discussion, and 
they exhibit diversities of sentiment >Yhich rightly claim a candid 
consideration. 

The appellation of a " Conservative," which you have been 
pleased to apply to me, gives me satisfaction. I have always pro- 
fessed to be " conservative" on this exciting subject ; repudiating, 
on the one hand, the fundamental principle of fanatical abolition- 
ism, which makes slaveholding always and everywhere sinful, and, 
on the other hand, rejecting with equal conscientiousness the ultra 
defences of slavery, which constitute it a Divine ordinance, in the 
sense that civil government is "ordained of God," and which claim 
for it an undefined permanence.* 

I follow your example in making a few preliminary remarks. 

1. Some of our mutual friends, who are fearful of the agitation 
of slavery in our Church, have advised me not to reply to your 
letters. But if any danger was to be apprehended, the alarm 
ought to have been sounded before so much had been written from 
the other side of the line. It is quite probable that a brief notice of 
my brief review would have been allowed to pass without any answer. 
My position, however, is very much changed, after three long 
letters, containing an elaborate and skilful attack on the conserva- 
tive views prevalent in the Presbyterian Church, have been exten- 
sively circulated. I am glad that you concur with me in the 
opinion that a discussion of the points at issue between us " cannot 
involve any agitation of the Church." 

* I am a little surprised that, in the popular classification of " Abolitionist, Con- 
servative, and Pro-slavery man," you so quietly assume the appellation of the latter. 
Whether I admit the propriety of your proposed designation of " Philosophical, Phi- 
losophico-Scriptural, and Scriptural," you will better understand after you have read 
my letters. The only true division is Scriptural and Unscriptural. 



24 Dr. Van Rensselaer s First Reply. 

2. The wbole truth pertaining to this subject, is of the utmost 
consequence. Slavery is among the prominent practical questions 
of the age. The destiny of several millions of human beings is 
more or less affected by the views of ministers and others, who, 
like yourself, possess an extensive influence in the formation of 
public opinion. I cannot shrink from any lawful responsibility in 
candidly and boldly maintaining what I conceive to be the true 
philosophy and morals of slavery, as set forth in the Scriptures, 
and in the testimonies of the Presbyterian Church. No servant of 
Christ should exhibit a false timidity, when providentially chal- 
lenged to defend the right. 

3. Your candour and courtesy are models for my imitation. We 
undoubtedly entertain sentiments in regard to slavery, coincident 
in the main, but varying in importance according to the standpoint 
of different readers. Neither of us is a prejudiced partisan. Like 
yourself, although born at the North, I have lived at the South, 
and have learned, both there and here, to sympathize with my 
brethren who are involved in the evils of this perplexing social 
system. In Virginia I completed my theological education, was 
licensed and ordained by " the laying on of the hands of the Pres- 
bytery" of West Hanover, and commenced my ministry as a mis- 
sionary to the slaves, on the plantations of the Roanoke and Dan 
Rivers. These personalities are mentioned to show that we are, 
in some respects at least, on a level in this discussion. It is better 
for ministers of the same Church, who mutually appreciate each 
other's objects and position, and who endeavour candidly to arrive 
at the truth, to hold a Christian correspondence on slavery, than 
for boisterous and uncharitable partisans to break lances for vic- 
tory in a crowd of excited spectators. The present opportunity is 
a good one for mutual explanations, which may possibly produce a 
nearer approximation to agreement than is indicated by the line 
of separation marked out by some of your arguments. 

4. The discussion embraces the whole subject of slavery, and not 
merely the points which might by some be placed within the limits 
of Church authority. According to your judgment, "the points on 
"which we differ, lie entirely outside of the proper range of ecclesi- 
astical action." I shall hereafter express my views in regard to 
this particular opinion, contenting myself, for the present, with the 
simple affirmation, that I write with all the light I can obtain from 
the Bible, and with whatever illumination the Spirit of God may 
graciously grant. Without discussing at present the precise range 
of ecclesiastical action, I shall endeavour to seek " the truth, the 
whole truth, and nothing but the truth." 

5. The general form of a discussion depends upon the positions of 
those who engage in it. When I discussed the subject of slavery 
in 1835, my object was to examine and expose the two fundamen- 
tal principles of ultra abolitionism, viz., that slaveholding is always 
and everywhere sinful, and that emancipation is an immediate and 



The Scriptural Doctrine of Slavery. 25 

universal duty. On the present occasion I am called upon to de- 
fend the scriptural doctrine against arguments, which seem to ad- 
vocate (in a comparatively mild form) ultra pro-slavery vieAVS. The v^ 
Bible, as well as the Presbyterian testimony founded upon it, points 
to a clear, deep channel between these two dangerous passes. The 
Assembly's testimonies of 1818 and 1845, I regard as scriptural, 
harmonious, and, for the present at least, sufficient, occupying as 
they do, the true position between two extremes, and vindicating 
the opinions of those whom you rightly call " conservatives." 

I now proceed to the subject of your first Letter, viz., the pro- 
per STATEMENT OF THE SCRIPTURAL DOCTRINE OF SLAVERY. 

Your statement is, " Slaveliolding is not a sin m the sight of 
Gfod, a7id is not to be accounted an offence hy his Church.'' 

My statement is, ^^ Slaveholding* is not necessarily and in all 
cireumsta7ices sinful.'' 

My statement was written currente calamo, without any inten- 
tion to propound an exact formula of the scriptural doctrine. Some 
might prefer to either statement one in these words: " Slavehold- 
ing, in itself considered, is not sinful," or "All slaveholding is not 
sinful ;" or " There is a slaveholding, which is consistent with the 
Christian profession." I adhere, however, to what I have written ; 
because, whilst my original form of statement includes the lawful- 
ness of the relation, in itself considered, it also more clearly ex- 
presses the idea that circumstances may render tlie continuance of 
the relation wrong. It brings out, in my judgment, inore scriptural 
truth on the subject than any of the forms mentioned, and espe- 
cially than yours. 

All admit that slavery, in a worse form than that which now 
exists in this country, prevailed throughout the Roman empire. As 
a system in actual operation, with its cruel laws and usages, the 
Apostles could have no more approved it than they did the despot- 
ism of Nero. And yet they nowhere condemned the relation 
itself as necessarily sinful. Despotism maintains a relation to civil ^ 
government analogous to that which slaveholding sustains to the 
household. Absolute authority may exist in both relations, under 
certain circumstances, without sin. The inspired writers uniformly 
treat both despotism and slaveholding as forms of society which 
circumstances might justify. 

The Bible contains no formal statement of the doctrine of slavery, 
but enforces the duties groAving out of the relation. A correct 
statement of the scriptural mode of treating slavery might be in 
these words : " All masters and all slaves are bound to perform 
their relative duties, arising from legal authority on the one hand, 
and from enjoined submission on the other." You had, undoubt- 
edly, the right to exhibit the doctrine of slaveholding in the more 

* I have substituted " slaveholding" for "slavery," in order to remove all ambi- 
guity ill the terms. 



26 Br. Van Rensselaer s First Reply. 

abstract form, propounded in your volume. But, I think that the 
reader of your volume and letters does not receive the full impres- 
sion of scripture truth and exhortation, properly pertaining to this 
subject. Your unqualified statement that " slaveholding is not a 
sin in the sight of God," seems to me to fall short of a perfect for- 
mula, even from " the admitted, scriptural premises" adduced, and 
by me cordially acquiesced in. I submit a brief commentary on 
these " admitted, scriptural premises," by way of developing the 
argument. 1. If " slaveholding does not appear in any catalogue 
of sins," this fact proves that it is not malum in se. It is also de- 
serving of notice that slaveholding does not appear in any enumera- 
tion of virtues and graces. 2. The Apostles received slaveholders 
to the communion, and so they did despots and their abettors in 
Ciesar's household. 3. Paul sent back a fugitive slave, and would 
also have sent back a deserter from the imperial army. 4. The 
injunction to slaves to obey their masters does not approve of 
slavery, any more than the command to submit to " the powers 
that be," implied approbation of Nero's despotism. 5. The dis- 
tinctions of slavery in regard to the interests of Christian life are, 
like all other outward distinctions, of comparatively little impor- 
tance ; and yet the general injunction of Paul on this subject was, 
"Art thou called, being a slave? care not for it. But if thou 
mayst be free, use it rather." 6. The Christian doctrine of Paul 
respecting the mutual duties of masters and servants is clearly 
wholesome, and utterly subversive of modern abolitionism ; but 
whilst it proves that the relation is not in itself sinful, it does not 
sanction the relation as a desirable and permanent one. 7. Chris- 
tian ministers, who preach to the slavles insurrection, instead of sub- 
mission, and who denounce slaveholding as necessarily and always 
sinful, are on unscriptural and dangerous ground. 

In my judgment, your "admitted scriptural premises" do not 
warrant the unqualified statement of doctrine which you have laid 
down. My commentary is simply designed as a rebutter to your 
too broad conclusions. 

Slaveholding, in itself considered, is not sinful ; that is to say, 
it is not a malum in se ; or, in other words, it is a relation that 
may be justified by circumstances. When we say that the relation 
itself is not sinful, we do not mean, by the expression, a mere ab- 
straction ; for slavery cannot be conceived of apart from a master 
and a slave. But we mean that slaveholding, as a practical rela- 
tion, depends upon certain conditions for its justification. What is 
malum in se cannot be justified by any circumstances; the law of 
God always condemns it. But slaveholding being among things 
> " i7i(lifferent" in morals, it may be right or wrong, according to the 

conditions of its existence. Hence your definition, which excludes 
circumstances, comes short of the full Scripture doctrine. 

Three sources of your defective statement, as it appears to me, 
deserve consideration. 



k« 



The Scriptural Doctrine of Slavery. 21 

1st. You have erred in placing the relation of master and slave 
on the same basis with that of parent and child. Your illustration 
assumes too much on this point. There are specific and funda- 
mental differences between these two relations. The marriage re- 
lation is divinely constituted ; it existed anterior to sin ; it is normal 
in its character and permanent in duration ; and it is honourable in 
all. Whereas the relation of master and slave cannot be said to 
be more than providentially permitted or sanctioned; it originated 
as you admit, by the wickedness of " manstealing," and by a 
violation of the laws of God ; it implies an abnormal condition 
of things, and is therefore temporary ; and it must be acknow- 
ledged, that it is in discredit generally throughout Christendom. 
The two relations are quite distinct in their nature. That of mas- 
ter and slave is not, indeed, in itself sinful; but it cannot be looked 
upon with the complacency with which the parental relation is 
contemplated. The parental relation and slaveholding possess, of 
course, some afiinities. They may fall into the same category, if the 
classification be made wide enough, for both belong to the social 
State and have relative duties. Or, if the classification be made 
even narrower, they may still be arranged under the same category, 
for both imply the possession of absolute power. But, if the classi- 
fication be into natural relations, and those relations which arise 
from circumstances, then marriage goes into the former category, 
and slavery into the latter. It is only within a certain compass, 
therefore, that we can reason from one to the other, without danger 
of pernicious fallacies. 

2. In the second place, your unqualified proposition that " slave- 
holding is not sinful," mistakes the scriptural view by implying its 
lawfulness everyivhere and under all circumstances. The relation 
of master and slave may be lawful in Virginia at the present time. 
But is it lawful in New Jersey, or in New England ? And will it 
always be lawful in Virginia ? I apprehend not. The good of the 
slave and of the community is the great law controlling the exist- 
ence of the relation. If a slaveholder were to remove from Vir- 
ginia into New Jersey, your proposition loses all its virtue, and 
collapses into error. Slaveholding is sinful by the laws of that 
State ; and even if there were no law prohibiting its existence on 
the statute-book, could the citizens of New Jersey become slave- 
holders under the plea that "slaveholding is not a sin in the sight of 
God ?" Again, is it clear, that citizens in the Free States can 
always lawfully enter into this relation, when they remove into 
States where the laws sanction it ? Under the shelter of your 
proposition, they might do so; but it is certain, that there are tens 
of thousands of Christians in the Free States, who could not enter 
voluntarily into this relation without involving their consciences in 
sin. Slavery, even in the Slave States, where it may lawfully exist 
at the present time, is abnormal and exceptional, and is to be 
justified only by circumstances. This your definition overlooks. 



28 Dr. Van Mensselaer's First Reply. 

8. In the third place, jour statement passes by the testimony of 
the Old Testament dispensation. Moses found slavery an institu- 
tion in existence, and treated it as an admitted evil. Tolerating 
it under the peculiar condition of society, the laws of the Hebrew 
Commonwealth were framed with a view to mitigate its evils, to 
restrict its limits, and, finally, to discountenance it altogether. 
The distinction between the lawfulness of enslaving Israelites and 
Gentiles, with various other discriminating regulations, shows, that 
Moses took into view circumstances in his legislation on this sub- 
ject. Even under the Jewish dispensation, your statements would 
not have been received as a full and definite exposition of the true 
doctrine of slavery. My original statement that " slaveholding 
is not necessarily and under all circumstances sinful," accords bet- 
ter, both with the letter of the Old Testament dispensation and 
the spirit of the New, than does yours. 

What I especially insist upon, in a scriptural statement of the 
doctrine of slavery is, that the relation itself shall not be con- 
founded with the injustice of slave laws on the one hand, nor 
separated, on the other hand, from the providential circumstances 
or condition of society, where it claims a lawful existence. 

If you, therefore, ask, generally, why in my statement, I qualify 
the relation by the words "not necessarily and in all circumstances 
sinful," I reply, that the possession of despotic power is a thing to 
be justified, and for which a good reason is always to be given. 
Marriage is to continue as long as the race, and is in its own nature 
everywhere lawful. Not so with slavery. You, yourself, contend 
in your book, that it was originally wrong, and that the menstealers 
in Africa, and, inferentially, the slave-buyers in America, of that 
generation, sinned against God by their mutual traffic in flesh and 
blood. Slavery does not, like marriage, arise from the nature of 
man. It exists only from the peculiar condition of the slave class. 
And, therefore, a scriptural statement must not ignore a reference 
to providential developments ; and it is right to characterize the 
relation by words which qualify its lawfulness. 

Again. If you ask how circumstances can make a relation sin- 
ful, which in itself may be lawful, I reply, that circumstances always 
control the moral character of those relations and actions, which 
belong in morals to things " indiff'erent," or adiaphora. Some 
things, like idolatry and manstealing, are mala in se, and can be 
justified by no circumstances whatever. Other things, like poly- 
gamy, Avere tolerated under the Old Testament dispensation, but 
not under the New. Other things, as slavery, were tolerated under 
both dispensations ; but neither under the Old nor the New dis- 
pensation was slavery recognized as lawful, apart from the circum- 
stances of its origin and the attending conditions. The circum- 
stances in the midst of which slaveholding finds itself, will always 



The Scriptural Doctrine of Slavery, 29 

be an element to enter into its justification, or condemnation, at 
the bar of righteousness. 

Again. If you press me still closer, and ask more particularly, 
how the qualifying and restrictive language employed by me, is 
consistent with the language of Scripture in regard to the duties 
of masters and slaves, — Avhich many interpret as giving full and uni- 
versal sanction to the system of slaveholding, — I reply,/rsf, that the 
mere injunction of relative duties, as has been already intimated, 
does not imply full approbation of a relation, which circumstances 
may for a time render lawful, and the duties of which require clear 
specification. The general duty of submission to the established 
government, does not prove that all despots are sinless in obtaining 
and in retaining their absolute power. Servants are required to be 
subject not only to good and gentle, but to froward masters, who 
make them suffer wrongfully. (1 Peter 2 : 18, 19.) This, however, 
does not make such frowardness and cruelty, on the part of the 
masters, sinless. And, generally, the meekness with which we are 
required to bear insult and injury, does not justify those wrongs. 
Doddridge says, "I should think it unlawful to resist the most un- 
just power that could be imagined, if there was a probability of 
doing mischief by it." But this cannot make what is wrong and 
pernicious in any particular form or circumstances, sacred, divine, 
and immutable. Polygamy, which was tolerated under the Old 
Testament, under certain conditions, was a relation of mutual rights 
and obligations ; but was polygamy, therefore, on a level with the 
marriage relation, and was it an institution that could be perpe- 
tuated without sin ? Certainly not. Nor does the exhortation to 
masters and servants imply anything more than that the prescribed 
relative duties are to be discharged as long as the relation may be 
lawfully continued. Secondly, the duties of submission, heart-ser- 
vice, &c., on the part of the slaves, and the corresponding duties 
of the masters, belong to my statement as much as they do to 
yours. The performance of these mutual duties is essential to the 
solution of the problem of slavery, and to the inauguration of the 
new circumstances which may make its continuance a wrong. 
Thirdly, slaveholding not being a malum in se, no scriptural ex- 
hortation against the relation under all circumstances, would have 
been consistent with truth and righteousness. Hence, neither des- 
potism nor slaveholding receives from the Scriptures the undiscri- 
minating anathemas hurled by modern fanatics. Their temporary 
justification depends on circumstances of which the rulers and 
masters of each generation must judge, as in sight of the Ruler 
and Master in heaven. Fourthly, The general spirit of the doc- 
trines and precepts of the Bible operates unequivocally and de- 
cidedly against the permanence of slavery in the household, or of 
despotism in the state. An emphatic testimony is rendered on 
the pages of revelation against these relations, -whose origin is in 



t^ 



80 Dr. Van Rensselaer s First Reply. 

human sins and woes, and whose continuance is justified only hy 
the public good. Instead of precise rules, which the wisdom of 
God has not prescribed for the eradication of all the evils of society, 
the Gospel substitutes sublime and heart-moving principles, which 
make the Christian "a law unto himself," and transform, through 
the Spirit, human nature into the image of the divine. 

After all, we both agree in the fundamental position that slavery 
may exist without sin ; that the relation, in itself considered, is not 
sinful. You prefer your statement of the doctrine, and I prefer 
mine. You imagine, in comparing my statement with Scripture, 
that you discern "discord," and catch the sound of " ([uavering 
notes;" whilst, to my ears, your statement sounds like an old tune 
with unpleasant alterations, and withal, set on so high a key as to 
endanger falsetto in unskilful voices. It is my honest conviction 
that my formula approaches the nearest to the true doctrine of 
Scripture. 

The correctness of my form of statement is, I think, confirmed 
by several considerations. 

In the first place, this mode of stating the scriptural doctrine of 
slavery coincides ivith the testimonies of the Presbyterian Church. 

The General Assembly of 1818 uses the following language: 

" We do, indeed, tenderly sympathize with those portions of our Church 
and our country where the evil of slavery has been entailed ; where a great, 
and the most virtuous, part of the community abhor slavery, and wish its 
extermination as sincerely as any others; but where the number of slaves, 
their ignorance, and their vicious habits generally, render an immediate 
and universal emancipation incondstent alike with the safety and hapjn- 
ness of (he master and slave. With those who are thus circumstanced, 
we repeat that we tenderly sympathize. At the same time, we earnestly 
exhort them to continue, and, if possible, to increase their exertions to 
effect a total abolition of slavery. AVe exhort them to suffer no greater 
delay to take place in this most interesting concern, than a regard to the 
puhlic xctlfare truly and indispensably demands." 

Here, it will be seen, the doctrine of our Assembly is, that cir- 
cumstances control the continuance of slavery. This relation is 
justifiable, or otherwise, according as "the happiness of the master 
and slave" and "the public welfare" are promoted by it. 

The paper adopted by the General Assembly in 1845, by a vote 
of 168 to 13, assumes the same principle, and substantially adopts 
the form of my original statement. It says : 

"The question, which is now unhappily agitating and dividing other 
branches of the Church, is whether the holding of slaves is, vndcr all 
circumstances, a heinous sin, calling for the discipline of the Church." 
p. 812. "The question, which this Assembly is called upon to decide is 



The Scriptural Doctrine of Slavery. 31 

this : Do the Scriptures teach that the holding of slaves, loithout regard 
to circumstances, is a sin V p. 812. 

You perceive that the question is stated in words -whicli resemble 
very much the words of a "Conservative." Further: 

"The Apostles did not denounce the relation itself as sinful." "The 
Assembly cannot denounce the holding of slaves as necef^sari/i/ a heinous 
and scandalous sin." p. 812. "The existence of domestic slavery, under 
the circumstances in which it is found in the southern portion of the 
country, is no bar to Christian communion." p. 813. 

Whilst my statement of the doctrine of slavery coincides with 
the utterances of the Church, mnny will think that yours comes 
far short of it. Whatever added explanations may cause it to 
approximate to the language of the General Assembly, the naked 
words are as dissimilar, as a leafless tree is from one of living 
green. 

As you frequently quote Dr. Hodge, I also will take the liberty 
of exhibiting the opinions of the distinguished Professor, in their 
true connection with the point at issue. I ask your particular 
attention to these extracts from the Biblical Repertory, which 
might be extended, if necessary. 

"An equally obvious deduction [from the Scriptures] is, that slave- 
holding is not necessarily/ sinful." 1836, p. 277. 

" Both political despotism and domestic slavery belong in morals to 
the adiaphora, to things indifferent. They may be expedient or inexpe- 
dient, right or wrong, according/ to circumstances. Belonging to the same 
class, they should be treated in the same way. Neither is to be denounced 
as necessarily sinful, and to be abolished immediately tinder all circum- 
stances." p. 286. 

" Slavery is a question of circumstances, and not a malum in se." 
" Simply to prove that slaveholding interferes with natural rights, is not 
enough to justify the conclusion that it is necessarily and universally sin- 
ful" p. 292. 

" These forms of society [despotism, slavery, &c.] are not necessarily, 
or in themselves, just or unjust; but become one or the other according 
to circumstances." p. 295. 

" Monarchy, aristocracy, democracy, domestic slavery, are right or 
wrong, as they are, for the time being, conducive to this great end [intel- 
lectual and moral elevation] or the reverse." p. 302. 

" We have ever maintained that slaveholding is not in itself sinf id ; that 
the right to personal liberty is conditioned by the ability to exercise bene- 
ficially that right." 1849, p. 601. 

<' Notliing can be more distinct than the right to hold slaves in certain 
circumstances, and the right to render slavery perpetual." p. 603. 

These quotations prove that Dr. Ilodge unites with the great 
body of our Church, north and south, east and west, in limiting 
the lawfulness of slaveholding by the very terms of its formal defi- 



32 Br. Van Rensselaer s First Reply.. 

nition, at tlie same time that he earnestly contends, with all who 
are on scriptural ground, that the relation, in itself considered, is 
not sinful. The "conservatives" of the Church everywhere uphold 
all the testimonies of the General Assembly in their true sprit and. 
very letter. 

Another consideration, confirming the belief that my statement 
is the better of the two, is that it is more philosophical in its form. 
The conditions of an ethical proposition relating to slavery, as 
furnished by yourself, are threefold. 1. The proposition must be 
in the usual form of ethical propositions. 2. It must be so ex- 
pressed as to require no explanations. 3. It should cover all the 
ground which Christianity covers. 

1. The usual form of ethical propositions in regard to adia- 
phora, or things indifferent, includes a reference to circumstances. 
Whether the proposition be expressed in a positive or negative form, 
is not of much account, provided the meaning be clear. Your own 
statement is a negative one ; but the difficulty is that its meaning 
is not plain. If the word despotism, or war, be substituted for 
slavery in our respective statements, I think you will see at once 
that your statement does not express the true idea, so well as mine. 
The proposition that " despotism, or war, is not a sin in the sight 
of God," is not a true ethical proposition. Because, like slavery, 
despotism and war seek their justification in circumstances. Cir- 
cumstances cannot be omitted from a philosophical proposition on 
" things indifferent." 

Your objection to my statement appears to be that it does not 
clearly admit the morality of slaveholding, but that it acquits the 
master with a sort of " whip, and clear him" judgment. This latter 
expression, if I understand it, means " strike first, and then acquit." 
Very far from such a rude proceeding is the intention, or tendency, 
of my argument. The force of it is simply to put the slaveholder 
in a position which demands him to justify himself before God, 
which every Christian ought always to be ready to do. I explicitly 
maintain that the relation may be a lawful one, and that the Chris- 
tian performance of its duties often brings peculiar honour upon 
the slaveholder, and calls into exercise some of the most shining 
graces of the Gospel. But slaveholding, although not malum in se, 
is not a natural and permanent phase of civilization. Like despot- 
ism or war, it is to be justified, or condemned, by the condition of 
things and the necessities of the case. It does not, in itself, imply 
an unchristian spirit, or unchristian conduct ; and hence our Church 
has always refused to recognize it as under all circumstances an 
" offence" and " a bar to Christian communion." My proposition 
throws no suspicion, or reproach, upon any one who is in a true 
and justifiable position ; and the very fact that it includes circum- 
stances as an element in the solution of its morality, proves it to be 
philosophically sound. 



The Scriptural Doctrine of Slavery. 33 

2. If the proposition, in order to be correctly stated, must re- 
quire no explanations, I think that my form has considerable ad- 
vantage over yours. " Slavery is not necessarily and in all cir- 
cumstances sinful" is a general proposition, containing, without the 
need of explanation, the ethical truths on the subject. Your pro- 
position, " Slavery is not a sin in the sight of God," is liable at once 
to the doubt, whether it is intended to be a universal or a particular 
proposition ; that is, whether you mean to say, "wo slaveholding is 
sinful," or only that '■'■some slaveholding is not sinful." The needed 
explanation, against which you protest, is actually given by you in 
another part of your letter, where you say that your statement by 
no means " involves the idea that all slaveholding is sinless in the 
sight of God," or in other words, some slaveholding is not a sin. 
How this could be expressed with more rigid accuracy than in my 
formula of^" slavery is not necessarily and in all circumstances 
sinful," it is for you to show. Why my formula does not more ex- 
actly express your belief than your own, which you would substi- 
tute^r it, is also for you to show. Your statement fails to endure 
the philosophical test brought forward by yourself. It must have 
explanations, before the reader can even understand whether it is a 
universal or particular proposition. 

Permit me to add, that even some of your explanations seem to 
need explanation. For example, in your illustration about the despot- 
ism of France, you say that this despotism is " at tlte 'present day, 
demanded by the general good of the French nation," and then go 
on to say, that " the time may come when the general good will de- 
mand a different form of government in France." Here you pro- 
pound my doctrine exactly ; and if you will only allow this expla- 
nation about despotism to enter into your proposition about slave- 
holding, it becomes identical with my own. But inasmuch as you 
insist, that " every general proposition shall be so expressed as to 
bear examination," " apart from all explanation" you prove that 
your proposition, as it stands, is not a general, but a particular one, 
and that mine is really the universal and the philosophical propo- 
sition. Again ; your proposition demands explanation, as a prac- 
tical standard of right conduct as well as of sound philosophy. 
The proposition, that " slaveholding is not a sin," requires explana- 
tion, if you apply the doctrine to the first generation, who, as is 
generally believed, wrongfully purchased the slaves, and thus 
abetted manstealing and entailed this unnatural relation upon suc- 
ceeding generations. It requires explanation, if, anywhere at the 
South, the good of one or more slaves, and the glory of God, would 
be promoted by their emancipation. It requires explanation in the 
Free States, where slavery is prohibited by law, and where the 
welfare of society does not require the existence of this institution. 
On the other hand, my proposition that "slavery is not necessarily 
and in all circumstances sinful" expresses the truth without expla- 
nation. No proposition can be expected to define the circumstances 

3 



34 Br. Van Rensselaer s First RepJi/. 

under which slavery in every instance may be justified or not. It 
is sufficient for the purposes of a general statement, to give slave- 
holding a place among things indifferent (adiaphora), and to imply 
that it is not a permanent institution, based, like marriage, upon 
the law of God, but one that owes its continuance to the necessities 
of the public welfare. 

3. If the proposition must cover all the ground covered by the 
doctrine of Christ and his Apostles, then I think that your statement 
again suffers in comparison with mine. This point has been already 
discussed. The substance of the scriptural doctrine, in my opinion, 
is briefly this : First. Slaveholding, in itself considered, is not 
sinful ; or, it is not a malum in se. Secondly. It is a relation of 
mutual rights and obligations as long as it exists. And, thirdly. 
The general spirit and precepts of the Gospel are opposed to its 
perpetuity. I consider that my proposition, in this and in other 
respects, meets your ethical conditions better than your own. 

A third collateral consideration, in favour of my form of stating 
the scriptural doctrine of Slavery, is, that it commends itself more 
to the enlightened conscience of the Christian slaveholder. 

Christians, whose minds and hearts are imbued with the spirit 
of their Lord, cannot regard with complacency an institution, 
whose origin is in wrong, and whose continuance depends upon the 
inferior condition of a large class of their fellow-men. During 
my residence at the South, of three years, I do not remember of 
hearing any justification of slavery, except that which appealed 
to the actual necessities of the case. It was everywhere said : 
" The slaves are not fit to be free; neither their own nor the gene- 
ral welfare would be promoted by immediate emancipation." The 
lawfulness of continuing the relation under such circumstances 
could not be called in question. I am confident that the enlight- 
ened consciences of southern Christians prefer a definition of 
slavery which includes the providential aspect of the case. No 
abstract proposition, like yours, will place the vindication of slav- 
ery on high enough ground to pacify the consciences of those 
Christians who hold their fellow-men in bondage. 

But whilst the language of my statement of the doctrine really 
justifies, with a high reason, the lawfulness of the relation, if law- 
ful under the circumstances, the other advantage it has over your 
statement is in keeping the conscience awake to the obligations of 
improving the condition of the slaves, with a view to a restoration 
of their natural rights in a more perfect form of society. If slavery 
is only to be justified by circumstances, the inquiry must press 
itself upon the conscience of the Christian master, whether, in the 
first place, the circumstances and condition of society constitute a 
sufficient plea, in his judgment, for his present position as a slave- 
holder ; and in the second place, whether he is doing all he can, 
as a citizen of the state, and a member of the household of Christ, 



The Scriptural Doctrine of Slavery. 35 

to remove all unjust enactments from the statute book, and to break 
down the barriers of intellectual and moral degradation 'which are 
in the way of ultimate emancipation. Although " slavery is not 
necessarily and in all circumstances sinful," it may become so 
under circumstances where the elevation of the slave concurs with 
other conditions in rendering his emancipation a benefit. 

I claim, therefore, that my statement of the doctrine of slavery 
surpasses yours, both in its power to relieve the conscience, if 
charged with the guilt of the existing relation, and in its power to 
alarm the conscience, if in danger of neglecting the whole duties 
implied in the relation. My knowledge of southern Christian 
society gives me boldness in placing this view of the subject before 
the minds and hearts and consciences of my brethren ; for never 
has it been my privilege to be brought in contact with purer and 
more devoted servants of our Lord Jesus Christ, than are to be 
found in the Southern States. With all deference, and in all con- 
fidence, I submit to them the truthfulness of the positions taken in 
this letter. 

There is still one more consideration that gives scriptural weight 
to my form of stating the doctrine of slavery, namely, its practical 
poiver to resist error. 

The fundamental principle of ultra-abolitionism is that slavehold- 
ing is in itself sinful. The only efficacious mode of encountering 
this fanaticism, is to show from the Bible, that it rests upon a false 
foundation. The doctrines that abolitionism cannot resist, are, 
first, that the relation itself must neither be confounded with the 
unjust laws which define the system^ nor with the inadequate per- 
formance of the duties of the relation ; and secondly, that slave- 
holding is not malum in se, but right or wrong according to cir- 
cumstances. This double-edged sword of truth will pierce to the 
dividing asunder of the bones of rampant abolitionism. Indeed, 
some of the distinguished leaders of that faction have virtually con- 
ceded the scriptural efficiency of these positions, and the great mass 
of people in the Free States will do homage to their truth. The 
doctrine that " slavery is not necessarily and in all circumstances 
sinful," is the contradictory of the abolition dogma ; and its estab- 
lishment in this very form, will most effectually arrest the encroach- 
ments of error, and vindicate the cause of righteousness in a per- 
verse generation. Your bare statement, however, that "slavehold- 
ing is not a sin in the sight of God," does not meet the case ; like 
a spent arrow, it falls short of the mark. It is a correct state- 
ment, to a certain extent; but it does not include providential cir- 
cumstances, which necessarily enter into the morality of slavehold- 
ing. As a weapon to do battle with, your proposition invites as- 
sault, without the power to repel. It lacks the scriptural charac- 
teristic of fighting a good fight. It carries with it no available 
and victorious force. It provokes the conscience of the North; it 
lulls the conscience of the South. 



86 Br. Van Rensselaer s First Reply. 

This last sentence indicates an evil on the other extreme. Ultra 
pro-slavery is as much to be deprecated as ultra anti-slavery. The 
idea that slaveholding is a divine ordinance, and that it may be 
lawfully perpetuated to the end of time, is a monstrous doctrine, — 
derogatory to the spirit and principles of Scripture, to the reason 
and conscience of mankind, to the universal sway of Providence, 
and to the glory of Christian civilization. A distinguished slave- 
holder of the South, who owns several hundred slaves, and who is 
not a communicant in the Church, after hearing an ultra pro-slavery 
sermon, came out of the house of God, expressing strong disappro- 
bation of such sentiments ; and, stamping his foot on the ground, 
declared that he could not endure them. He added that his only 
justification, before God and the world, for holding slaves, was in 
the necessities of the case. The attempt to fortify slavery by ex- 
travagant and unreasonable positions can only do harm. Ex- 
tremists on one side always beget extremists on the other. Anti- 
slavery at the North has been the means of developing, to an 
extent before unknown, ultra pro-slavery at the South. The institu- 
tion is now claimed, by some, to be a divine ordinance, like mar- 
riage or civil government ; African bondage is sought to be justified 
by the original diversities of the human race ; and even the right 
eousness of the slave-trade itself is now openly vindicated in this land 
of liberty and age of light. One strong objection to your state- 
ment of the doctrine is, that it seems to give countenance to er- 
roneous and exaggerated views. It will be accepted, I fear, by 
the ultra pro-slavery party, as a good enough statement to be in- 
scribed upon their banners. I cordially acquit you of any inten- 
tion to contribute to the propagation of extreme opinions. But 
ought not a Presbyterian minister, of your position and influence, 
to be arrayed against such sentiments, beyond the possibility of 
misconception? Hitherto, little impression has been made on our 
Church by ultraists on either side. We at the North are able, with 
God's blessing, to maintain the scriptural ground against anti-slavery 
fanaticism ; and we ask our brethren at the South to repel the 
irruptions of pro-slavery fanaticism with equal determination. In 
order to do this successfully, the South needs a more guarded 
statement of doctrine than the one you have propounded. That 
statement is practically inefiicacious in resisting ultraism on either 
side. 

For these various reasons, I adhere to the belief that my original 
proposition on the subject of slaveholding, although not, perhaps, 
as perfect as it might be, is substantially correct, and is more 
scriptural and comprehensive than yours. 

Yours truly, 

C. Van Rensselaer. 



REPLY II. 



EMANCIPATION AND THE CHURCH. 

To THE Rev. George D. Armstrong, D.D. : — I certainly did 
not expect, when I penned the paragraph which you find fault with 
in your second letter, to become engaged in a controversy about 
"Emancipation and the Church." My standpoint was that of 
a private citizen, and I gave utterance to a sentiment, which, I 
supposed, would find a response in the bosom of any Christian 
slaveholder on his plantation. The idea of expounding the duty of 
the Church, in its official capacity, was not in my mind at all. I 
ask you to look at the plain terms of the paragraph : 

" We regard the Christian instruction and elevation of the slaves 
as a means to an end, and that end is the recovery of the blessings 
of personal liberty, when Providence shall open the way for it. 
The higher end is the salvation of their souls." 

This paragraph simply declares the Editor's private opinion in 
regard to the providential antecedents which must necessarily exist, 
prior to the fitness of the slaves for the blessings of personal liberty. 
A Christian man ought also, as I supposed, to have the end in view, 
as well as to keep the means in operation. 

I might, perhaps, have fairly declined any formal reply to your 
second letter, on the ground that you transcended the real inten- 
tions of my statement. But inasmuch as the inference you have 
drawn from it may be a natural one, and is an opinion I really 
hold, and the arguments, by which you attempt to oppose it, are, 
in my judgment, unsatisfactory, I shall accept the opportunity of 
discussing what you seem to insist upon, — the subject of " Emanci- 
pation AND THE Church." 

You begin by attempting "to strip the proposition" of what you 
are pleased to call its "adventitious support." I beg leave, how- 
ever, to insist that its Christian drapery shall remain upon it, and 
that it shall retain the firm support of its own Bible truth. The 
blessings of personal liberty have not been considered by me, in 
this discussion, in any other sense than including well-being. The 
whole morality of slaveholding depends upon conditions of social 



88 Dr. Van Eensselaers Second Reply. 

and public welfare, as I have endeavoured to show in my first 
letter. This is also the fundamental idea in the statement, which 
you desire to lay violent hands upon. My statement contains 
three ideas, which ought to be a sufficient guard against the im- 
pression that I was in favour of emancipation Avithout an adequate 
preparation. These three ideas are, first, a work of Christian in- 
struction among the slaves ; secondly, their elevation, as a result of 
this instruction ; and thirdly, a progressive condition of society, 
which, under Providence, would render emancipation practicable 
and beneficial. Could anything more be expected to render my 
meaning plain, and to include well-being as an element in the re- 
covery of freedom ? 

The expression "when Providence shall open the way for it," 
gives the latitude required in a question of this sort. True well- 
being was the precise thought in my mind ; for, as you justly re- 
mark, "Providence never does open the way for any change, unless 
well-being is to be promoted thereby." Judge, therefore, my sur- 
prise, when I find you not only imputing to me the opposite view, 
but also trying to rob my proposition of the support of divine 
Providence, whose glorious wisdom and power are so deeply con- 
cerned in the solution of this intricate problem. My view of the 
blessings of personal liberty magnifies well-being. Instead of ad- 
mitting, therefore, that my statement involves a petitio jorincipii, 
I hold that the real petition is from Dr. Armstrong to alter my 
proposition to suit his own views. This petition I respectfully 
decline. I cannot allow any one to banish God and his providence 
from my meditations on this subject. 1 choose to retain the whole 
paragraph, just as it was written, and more particularly the words 
you desire to exclude. 

The terms, "when Providence shall open the way," are used in 
exactly the same sense as the words " when God in his providence 
shall open the door for their emancipation," — an expression em- 
ployed by the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church, in 
1815, to convey the same idea on the same subject. The question of 
the time of emancipation is wisely left to the counsels of the Most 
High. Whether it shall be long, or "before very long," depends, 
in no inconsiderable degree, so far as human instrumentality is 
involved, upon the views of those who, like yourself, occupy influ- 
ential positions in the southern section of the Church. But whether 
the time be long or short, it will be when " Providence opens the 
way," or " when God in his providence shall open the door." Not 
until then, will emancipation be consistent with the true enjoyment 
of "the blessings of personal liberty." On this particular point, 
there does not appear to be any real difference of opinion between 
us. 

We also agree in regard to the chief and higher end, which the 
Christian slaveholder should keep before him. The salvation of 
the souls of his slaves is the continual burden of a pious master's 



Emanci'pation and the Church. 39 

heart. To be instrumental in bringing to his plantation-household 
the knowledge of the true God and of redemption by Jesus Christ, 
is the primary duty and privilege of the relation. No language 
can exaggerate the magnitude of this responsibility ; no enlightened 
Christian conscience can resist the power of its appeal. 

The point on which we differ is, whether the Church has any 
authority to contemplate emancipation as a righteous and lawful 
end. This, although a comparatively inferior matter, is neverthe- 
less one of real interest and importance. And, in order that I may 
not be misunderstood, I request the attention of my brother, Dr. 
Armstrong, to a few brief explanations. 

1. In the first place, an interest, on the part of the Church, in 
emancipation, does not imply an undue regard for the temporal, 
above the spiritual^ tvelfare of the slaves. The chief duty is to 
preach "Jesus Christ and Him crucified." No work on earth 
compares with that of religious teaching and preaching. The vast 
concerns of immortality should ever be uppermost in the aims and 
enterprises of the Church. And yet present well-being has such 
connections with eternal life, as to claim a just share of Christian 
interest in all generations. The position of the Presbyterian 
Church has always enabled her to preach the Gospel to both mas- 
ters and slaves. Ours is not an agitating Church. Her testimony 
on emancipation, as I shall presently show, has been uttered firmly 
and fearlessly ; but, unlike modern reformers, or other Churches 
less favoured of heaven, we have not magnified shivery above the 
higher interests of the kingdom of God, nor substituted vain 
clamour and restless agitation in the place of " righteousness, 
peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost." 

2. In the second place ; to keep in view emancipation as an end, 
which naturally follows the use of lawful means, does not bring the 
Chui'ch into the exclusive province of the State. Slavery has both 
moral and political aspects. In the letter of the General Assembly 
to the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, in 1846, the following re- 
marks have a place : 

" The relations of negro slavery, as it exists in the States that 
tolerate it, are twofold. Chiefly, it is an institution purely civile 
depending absolutely upon the will of the civil power in the States 
respectively in which it exists : secondarily, it has various aspects 
and relations, purely or mainly moral, in regard to which the 
several States permit a greater or less degree of intervention." 

Our Church has always avoided interference with the State, in 
matters that are outside of her own appointed work. She has not 
claimed authority over the political relations of slavery ; nor 
attempted to extend her domain over subjects not plainly within 
her own province. It is only where slavery comes within the line 
of ecclesiastical jurisdiction — that is to say, in its moral and reli- 
gious aspects, that our Church has maintained her right to deliver 
her testimony, in such forms, and at such times, as seemed best. 
She has " rendered unto Csesar the things that are Caesar's, and 



40 Dr. Van Rensselaer s Second Reply. 

unto God the things that are God's." Let no man attempt to de- 
spoil her of this joy. 

3. In the third place, the Church's testimony, in favour of eman- 
cipation, as a righteous end, must be distinguished from legislation 
over the consciences of men. Testimony differs from ecclesiastical 
law. It has different objects and purposes, and has a wider lati- 
tude of application. A Church judicatory may express its opinions, 
and attempt to exert its influence in a particular direction, within 
its lawful sphere, without pretending to make laws to bind the con- 
science. There are, indeed, duties devolving upon masters, whose 
violation is justly made the subject of discipline. But there are 
various views of slavery, which the Church, however desirous of 
their general adoption among her members, has presented only in 
the form of opinion, or testimony. Acquiescence in these views, 
as for example, those on emancipation, has never been made a test 
of Church communion. Dissenters from testimonies of this nature 
have no more reason to complain, than the minority in our public 
bodies have, in general, reason to complain of the decision of the 
majority on other questions, which come up lawfully for considera- 
tion. 

4. Emancipation, as an end to be kept in view, does not imjyhj 
reproach, where emancipation is, for the jjresent, impracticable. In 
my first letter, I have endeavoured to show that slaveholding is 
not necessarily, and under all circumstances, sinful. There may 
be conditions of society where the continuance of the relation is 
among the highest demands of religious obligation. But even in 
such cases, an enlightened view of duty would, in my judgment, 
acknowledge emancipation to be an end, worthy of the Gospel of 
our Lord Jesus Christ. The two ideas of the lawfulness of the 
existing relation, and of the ultimate end of emancipation, are per- 
fectly consistent and harmonious. The maintenance of the latter 
idea conveys no reproach upon the scriptural view of slaveholding. 
It is antagonistic only to the unscriptural view of the permanence 
of slavery, as an ordinance of God, on a level with marriage or 
civil government. 

5. The time of emancipation, as I have already intimated, the 
Church has left to the decisions of Providence. Circumstances 
vary so much in society, that no rule can have a universal applica- 
tion. It is sufficient to keep emancipation in view, and to labour 
to secure its attainment as speedily as circumstances will permit, 
or " when Providence shall open the way." 

Having made these explanations in the hope of disarming pre- 
judice and conciliating good-will, I shall proceed to show, first, 
that my views of "Emancipation and the Church" are sustained by 
the testimony of the General Assembly, whilst yours differ from it ; 
and secondly, that the testimony of our Church is sustained by the 
Word of God. 

The TESTIMONY OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY on emancipation is 



Emancipation and the Church. 41 

important, as an exhibition of the general sentiments of the Pres- 
byterian Church on this great social question, and particularly as 
showing its interpretation of the Scriptures. 

The first deliverance of our Church on the subject, was made in 
the year 1787, by the Synod of New York and Philadelphia, 
which was at that time our highest judicatory, and was in the act 
of forming our present ecclesiastical constitution. 

The deliverance is as follows : 

" The Synod of New York and Philadelphia do highly approve of the 
general principles in favour of universal liberty that prevail in America, 
and the interest which many of the States have taken in promoting the 
abolition of slavery ; yet, inasmuch as men, introduced from a servile 
state, to a participation of all the privileges of civil society without a 
proper education, and without previous habits of industry, may be in 
many respects dangerous to the community ; therefore, they earnestly re- 
commend it to all the members belonging to their communion, to give 
those persons who are at present held in servitude, such good education 
as to lirepare them for the better enjoyment of freedom ; and they more- 
over recommend that masters, whenever they find servants disposed to 
make a just improvement of the privilege, would give them a j^^cuh'um, 
or grant them sufficient time and sufficient means of procuring their own 
liberty, at a moderate rate; that thereby they may be brought into society 
with those habits of industry that may render them useful citizens; and 
finally, they recommend it to all their people to use the most prudent 
measures consistent with the interests and the state of civil society, in the 
countries where they live, to procure eventually the final abolition of 
slavery in America." 

In 1793, this judgment was reaffirmed by the General Assembly, 
and again reiterated by the Assembly in 1795, with the remark 
that " they trust every conscientious person tvill he fully satisfied 
with it." Its brevity, its comprehensiveness, its conservative tone, 
and its scriptural authority, make this testimony deserving of great 
attention. The General Assembly, in 1815, testified to the same 
eflfect ; 

" The General Assembly have repeatedly declared their cordial approba- 
tion of those principles of civil liberty, which appear to be recognized by 
the Federal and State Governments in these United States. They have 
expressed their regret that the slavery of the Africans, and of their de- 
scendants, still continues in so many places, and even among those within 
the pale of the Church, and have urged the Presbyteries under their care 
to adopt such measures as will secure, at least, to the rising generation 
of slaves within the bounds of the Church, a religious education, that they 
may he prepared for the exercise and enjoyment of liberty, lohen God, in 
his providence, may open the door for their emancipation." 

It could hardly be expected that a deliverance could bo found on 
the records of our Church, so exactly concurring in thought and 
language with the extemporaneous statement contained in my brief 
review. 



• 



42 Br. Van Rensselaer s Second Reijly. 

In 1818, the largest Assembly that had yet been convened, met 
in Philadelphia. An abler body of divines, probably, never as- 
sembled in our highest judicatory. The paper adopted by them, 
on the subject of slavery, is too well known to require large extracts. 
It was drawn up by Dr. Ashbel Green, with the concurrence of 
Dr. George A. Baxter, of your own Synod. Dr. Speece, of Vir- 
ginia, was Dr. Baxter's fellow-commissioner from your old Presby- 
tery of Lexington. I only quote a few sentences from this cele" 
brated document. 

"We rejoice that the Church to which we belong, commenced as early 
as any other in this country, the good work of endeavouriny to jmt an 
end to slaver//, and that in the same work, many of its members have ever 
since been, and now are among the most active, efficient, and vigorous 
labourers." 

"At the same time, we earnestly exhort them to continue, and, i/j^ossi- 
hle, to increase their exertions to effect a total abolition of slavery. We 
exhort them to suffer no greater delay to take place in this most interest- 
ing concern, than a regard to the public welfare truly and indispensably 
demands." 

" We, therefore, warn all who belong to our denomination of Christians, 
against unduly extending this plea of necessity; against making it a cover 
for the love and practice of slavery, or a pretence for not using efforts that 
are lawful and practicahle, to extinguish this evil. 

"And we at the same time exhort others to forbear harsh censures, 
and uncharitable reflections on their brethren, who unhappily live among 
slaves, whom they cannot immediately set free, but who are really using 
all of their influence and all their endeavours to bring them into a state 
of freedom, as soon as a door for it can be safely opened."'^ 

The General Assembly, in 1845, took action on the specific 
point, whether slaveholding was, under all circumstances, a bar to 
Christian communion ; and in 1846 reaihrmed all the testimony 
uttered by preceding General Assemblies. 

Here I might rest the case, so far as your opposition to the re- 
corded views of our Church needed any demonstration ; but as you 
are now a Virginian, I cannot avoid inviting your attention to the 
testimony of the Synod of Virginia in 1800. Half a century has, 
indeed, passed by, and many of the precious men of God, who then 
served the churches from Lexington to Norfolk, have ceased from 
their labours; but the record of their opinions will endure through- 
out all generations. 

This subject was brought before the Synod of Virginia by a 
memorial on emancipation, from one of their congregations. The 

* The Assembly's testimony of 181S was reaffirmed at the last meeting of the Synods 
of Pittsburg and Ohio. These two Synods, in the midst of which the Western Theo- 
logical Seminary stands, have been denominated " the back bone of Presbyterianism." 
The testimony of 1S18 contains some expressions which might be advantageously 
altered; but, with the proper explanations, it is consistent with that of 1S45. The 
parts I have quoted have not been excepted to, so far as 1 know. 



Emancipation and the Church. 43 

following extracts are from the answer returned by the Synod to 
the memorial. 

"That so many thousands of our fellow-creatures should, in this land 
of liberty and asylum for the oppressed, be held in chains, is a reflection 
to us painfully afflictive. And most earnestly do we wish that all the 
members of our communion would pay a proper attention to the recom- 
mendation of the late Synod of New York and Philadelphia upon this 
subject. We consider it the indispensable duty of all who hold slaves 
to prepai'e, hy a suitable education, the young among them for a state of 
freedom, and to liberate them as soon as they shall appear to be duly 
qualified for that high privilege; and such as neglect a duty so evi- 
dently and so powerfully enforced by the common principles of justice, 
as well as by the dictates of humanity, and the benign genius of our holy 
religion, ought, in our opinion, to be seriously dealt with and admonished 
on that account. But to refuse to hold Christian communion with any 
who may differ from us in sentiment and practice in this instance, 
would, we conceive, in the present conjuncture at least, be a very unwar- 
rantable procedure ; a direct infraction of the decision of the General 
Assembly of our Church, and a manifest departure from the practice of 
the Apostles and the primitive Church." 

"That it was wrong in the first instance to reduce so many of the 
helpless Africans to their present state of thraldom will be readily ad- 
mitted, and that it is a duty to adopt proper measures for their emanci- 
pation, will, it is p)resumed, be universally conceded. But, with respect 
to the measures best calculated to accomplish that important purpose, 
and the time necessary to give them full effect, different sentiments may 
be entertained by the true disciples of the Great Friend of man."* 

The Synod of Virginia probably entertain the same sentiments 
in 1^58 ; and, if the occasion required it, would doubtless reaffirm 
this testimony, with the same love to Christ that originated it in 
the days of Waddell, Legrand, Rice, Alexander, Lacy, Hoge, Lyle, 
Brown, Baxter, Houston, &c., — a generation of revered men, 
" mighty in the Scriptures." 

It is clear that my statement concerning " Emancipation and 
the Church" is no novelty, but that it is regular, orthodox, old- 
fashioned, Presbyterian truth. 

Secondly. I further maintain, that this truth is scriptural 
truth ; and, that the Church has a right to propose, and to hold 
forth, emancipation as a righteous end, when Providence shall 
open the way. 

Here, I am met, at once, by your declaration, that 
" The word of God contains no deliverance, express or clearly 
implied, respecting emancipation. Hence, I affirm, that the 

* Quoted from "The Hand Book of Slavekt," by the Rev. John Robinson, of k 
Ashland, Ohio. Published by John D. Thorpe, Cincinnati, IS.'j'J. This is one of 
the best books on the subject yet published, containing much valuable information 
and able discussion. 



44 Br. Van Rensselaer s Second Reply. 

Church has no right to make a deliverance respecting it ; mucli 
less to set it before herself as an end of her labours." 

In examining this proposition, I venture to lay down the follow- 
ing, as a counter proposition in part, and as a more scriptural view 
of the subject ; viz. : The Church has a right to expound, and to 
apply, the word of God, in reference to all the relations of life, 
and to all the changing aspects of society. The exposition and 
application must, of course, be consistent with the spirit and prin- 
ciples of the Bible, but they are not limited to the mere word of 
its letter, nor to any general or universal formula of expression. 
From the nature of the case, exposition requires enlargement of 
scriptural statement, and application implies a regard to providen- 
tial developments and to the varying circumstances of social and 
public life. Paul's Epistle to the Corinthians was very difi'erent from 
his Epistles to the Romans and to the Hebrews, although they all 
contained expositions of the same scriptural doctrines ; and his 
Epistle to Philemon contained a new application, in the case of 
Onesimus, of principles, not previously so fully developed. The 
Church has, in every age, the right to expound the sacred Scrip- 
tures according to the light granted by the Holy Spirit, and to 
apply its interpretation to all cases, judged to be within its spiri- 
tual jurisdiction. 

I. Let us, in this search after Bible truth, glance at some of the 
views of the Old Testament Scriptures, on slavery and emancipa- 
tion. 

A terrific statute flashed out from Sinai into the legislation of 
the Hebrew commonwealth. By the laws of Moses, " He that 
stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hands, he 
shall surely be put to death." (Ex. 21 : 16.) The' original man- 
stealer, and the receiver of the stolen person, were both to suffer 
the penalty of death. The operation of this single statute would 
have forever excluded the existence of American slavery. 

Another provision, of some significance, shone with benignant 
beams of liberty. A fugitive slave, from a foreign country, was 
not to be sent back into slavery. (Deut. 23 : 15, 16.) The Hebrew 
commonwealth was a city of refuge and an asylum of liberty to 
the surrounding nations. These two statutes stood, like Jachin and 
Boaz, at the vestibule of the Mosaic legislation on slavery. 

Hebrew bondmen were held under a system, which resembled, 
in its nature, hired service rather than slavery, and whose duration 
was limited. Hebrew servants were emancipated on the seventh 
year, except in cases of voluntary agreement, and of children born 
under certain circumstances. In the year of Jubilee, liberty Avas 
proclaimed " unto all the inhabitants of the land." (Lev. 25 : 10.) 
In the fiftieth year, every Hebrew " returned unto his family," 
under the protection of a great festival statute.* 

* There are differences of opinion about the extent of emancipation, on the year of 



Emancipation and the ChurcJi. 45 

The Old Testament dispensation made distinctions between the 
Israelites and Gentiles, in various parts of its legislation, and, 
among others, on slavery. Bondmen, purchased by the Hebrews 
from the Gentiles, might be held in perpetuity. Their bondage, 
however, as Dr. Spring remarks, partook of the character of appren- 
ticeship, rather than of rigorous servitude. 

The great fact remains prominent, tiiat the bondage of Hebrews 
was temporary. Emancipation was continually in sight ; and the 
eflFect of their septennial and jubilee emancipation periods must 
have been a moral check and rebuke to slavery, under whatever 
forms it was tolerated. 

The long-existing middle wall of partition between Jews and 
Gentiles, was at length overthrown by Christianity. Thencefor- 
ward, all mankind stood in the new relation of a common brother- 
hood. " There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond 
nor free, there is neither male nor female ; for ye are all one in 
Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, 
and heirs according to the promise." (Gal. 3 ; 28, 29.) Timothy, 
who, from a child, had known the Holy Scriptures, must have 
realized, with all pious Jews, that the spirit of the Old Testament 
no longer sanctioned the holding of even G-entUe brethren, in per- 
petual bondage. All laws, peculiar to the Jewish economy, being 
now abolished, the New Testament, in its larger spirit and greater 
light, was brought into contact with the arbitrary slavery of the 
Pagan nations. Can it be believed that, under these circumstances, 
any well-instructed Jewish Christians would become voluntarily 
involved in the pagan system of slavery ? Heathen slaveholders, 
on their becoming Christians, received instructions, which gave 
new views of their obligations, and which tended to the ultimate 
abolition of the system. 

II. Christianity, .in reforming the evils of society, inculcated 
general principles, of far greater influence than positive Mosaic 
laws. Before examining the true tendency of some of these scrip- 
tural principles, I shall ask your attention to the doctrine, which 
Paul expounded to the Corinthian slaves. " Art thou called, 
being a servant, or slave, care not for it. But if tJiou mayst he 
made free, use it rathkr." (1 Cor. 7 : 21.) 

The ideas that are fairly implied in this verse are the following : 
1. Religion is the most precious of all blessings to mankind. 

Jubilee. Some suppose that all the slaves, whether Hebrews or Gentiles, were 
then set free ; others suppose that not even all the Hebrews were emancipated. My 
own opinion is, that the Jubilee was for the Hebrews alone, and that it emancipated 
all the Hebrew bondmen. The only doubt is in reference to those Hebrews, who 
became voluntary bondmen, and whose ears were bored in token of their submis- 
sion. But Josephus, Maimonides, Calvin, Mich;rlis, &c., include these among those 
set free at the fiftieth year, and maintain that the Jubilee period gave to the He- 
brews universal emancijiation. Even if an exception is to be made, of the compara- 
tively few cases of voluntary, ear-bored, bondmen for life, the argument is not mate- 
rially affected. 



■4S Dr. Van Rensselaer's Second Reply. 

The Lord's freeman may bear, with little anxiety, any external con- 
dition of life, even though it be that of bondage. Well may Pres- 
byterians rejoice that their Church, in conformity to apostolic pre- 
cept and practice, has preached the Gospel to the slaves, without 
unduly agitating points bearing on their temporal welfare. 

2. Slavery is an abnormal, and not a permanent, condition. 
Paul exhorted Christian slaves to seek emancipation, if within their 
reach, or if Providence opened the way for it. It is impossible to 
reconcile this inspired passage with the theory that slavery, like 
civil government or marriage, is an ordinance of God, to be per- 
petuated forever. "Use your freedom, rather," says Paul, ex- 
pounding the nature of slavery, and throwing the light of inspira- 
tion upon its anomalous character. When did the Apostle ever 
exhort husbands and wives not to care for the marriage tie, and 
to seek to be free from it, if the opportunity offered ? Slavery was 
in its nature a temporary expedient, differing from marriage, which 
is founded upon the natural and permanent relations of life. Sla- 
very is limited in its duration by the very conditions of its lawful 
existence. 

3. The Apostle teaches the Corinthian slaves that liberty is a 
higher and better condition than bondage. Although Christian 
slaves ought to be submissive to their lot, they have a right to regard 
liberty as a greater blessing. Calvin, our great commentator, 
says: "Paul means to intimate that liberty is not merely good, 
but also more advantageous than servitude. If he is speaking to 
servants, his meaning will be this : While I exhort you to be free 
from anxiety, I do not hinder you from even availing yourselves of 
liberty, if a [lawful] opportunity presents itself to you. If he is 
addressing himself to those who are free, it will be a kind of con- 
cession, as though he had said, — I exhort servants to be of good 
courage, though a state of freedom is preferable,* and more to be 
desired, if one has it in his choice." The Apostle evidently con- 
sidered liberty to be the highest state, offering an advance in civili- 
zation and true well-being, when Providence opens the way. 

4. Paul also maintains that emancipation is an object of Chris- 
tian desire, when it can be lawfully secured. Our own great com- 
mentator. Dr. Hodge, says : " Paul's object is not to exhort men 
not to improve their condition, but simply not to allow their social 
relations to disturb them ; or imagine that their becoming Christians 
rendered it necessary to change those relations. He could, with 
perfect consistency with the context, say to the slave, ' Let not 
your being a slave give you any concern ; but if you can become 
free, choose freedom rather than slavery.' Luther, Calvin, Beza, 
and the great body of commentators, from their day to this, under- 
stood the Apostle to say that liberty was to be chosen, if the oppor- 
tunity to become free were offered." 

* "Soil hcaucouf meilleur" — "is mtich better." 



Emancipation and the Church. 47 

Kow, if the great Apostle to the Gentiles taught that slavery is 
an inferior condition, and that, under right circumstances, emanci- 
pation is a lawful object of Christian desire, may not the Church 
teach the same things? Whilst the highest and chief end is to 
lead the slaves to Christ and to heaven, is the Church compelled 
to abjure all other ends, relating to human happiness, elevation, 
and liberty ? Far from it. Paul's doctrine to Timothy, upon 
which you lay so much stress, must not be expounded to the exclu- 
sion of Paul's doctrine to the Corinthians. 

Christian masters are informed, in this passage, that their slaves 
may rightly regard their bondage as an inferior state, which may 
be superseded in due time ; and the masters themselves are thus, 
incidentally, instructed to keep emancipation in view, and to pre- 
pare the slaves for it, when the providential opportunity arrives. 

Further. If emancipation be a good which slaves may lawfully 
desire, it is a good which all Christians may lawfully desire, and 
labour, according to their opportunity, to confer upon them. It 
is not, indeed, in such a sense an absolute good that it may not be 
abused, or that every class of people is always prepared safely to 
possess it. The same is true of the self-control which the law 
confers upon children, on reaching their majority. But is this any 
reason why children should not desire to be their own masters at a 
suitable age, or why all should not desire and labour so to train 
them that they may be duly prepared, at the fit time, to be invested 
with self-control ? 

You refer me to the explanations of your book on this passage 
in the Epistle to the Corinthians. The explanations I find to be 
twofold : First, you urge that slavery in Greece and Rome was 
far more rigorous than in our Southern States ; and secondly, that 
the Africans and Anglo-Saxons belong to different races; and that, 
on these two accounts, the doctrine of Paul has a less forcible ap- 
plication to American than to Corinthian slaves. I cheerfully 
yield to your argument any benefit which may be fairly claimed by 
a change of circumstances ; but I submit, in reply, first, that 
human nature is the same in all ages and nations, and has natural 
desires to embrace every lawful opportunity to improve its outward 
condition ; secondly, that the Apostle propounds a principle, which 
has a real bearing upon slavery at all times and everywhere ; 
thirdly, that the light, liberty, and Christian appliances of the 
nineteenth century, are an oifset against the supposed advantages 
for emancipation possessed by ancient Greece and Rome ; and 
fourthly, that your apology for not fully applying the principle to 
slavery now, as well as to slavery eighteen hundred years ago, is 
at least a virtual acquiescence, however feeble, in the truth of 
Paul's doctrine. — I find, indeed, on recurring to your book, that 
Dr. Armstrong expounds the passage admirably. You say : " Yet, 
if they can lawfully be made free, as a general rule, slaves had 
better accept their freedom ; for a condition of slavery is not to 



48 Dr. Van Rensselaer's Second Reply. 

be desired on its own account." p. 67. This is substantially the 
" Christian doctrine" I am advocating; but how a Christian minis- 
ter can reconcile this scriptural view of the subject with the silent 
and unchallenged expression of all sorts of opinions about the 
perpetuity, desirableness, &c., of slavery, I leave others to deter- 
mine. Slavery was no less a political institution in the days of Paul 
than it is now. Is the Church, therefore, to be perpetually silent, 
as though slavery possessed no moral relations to the law of God ? 
Is it exclusively a question of "capital and labour?" Surely, the 
Church may follow Paul in his inspired expositions, although his 
Epistles contain some things "hard to be understood," and easy to 
"wrest." 

III. Paul's incidental interpretation of the law of liberty to the 
Corinthian slaves, is in entire accordance with the injimctiotis of 
Scripture. Slaveholding is not in itself sinful, but its existence 
binds upon masters and slaves mutual obligations, whose tendency 
is to abolish eventually the entire system. If the Scriptures enjoin 
what, of necessity, leads to emancipation, they enjoin emancipation 
itself, when the time comes ; if they forbid what is necessary to the 
perpetuity of slavery, they forbid that slavery should be perpe- 
tuated. 

How, then, do these divine injunctions to masters and slaves ope- 
rate against the perpetuity of slavery? 

1. Christianity requires the kind personal treatment of the 
slaves ; it removes the rigours of bondage, and insensibly assimi- 
lates the system to one of apprenticeship. Religious obligation is 
made the basis of all the duties of the relation. There is a " Master 
in Heaven," who rules over all ; who searches the hearts of all ; 
who weighs the actions of all ; and who keeps a record for the 
final judgment. " The Bible method," says Dr. Hodge, " of deal- 
ing with slavery and similar institutions, is to enforce, on all con- 
cerned, the great principles of moral obligation — assured that those 
principles, if allowed free scope, will put an end to all the evils 
both in the political and social relations of men." "First, the 
evils of slavery, and then slavery itself, would pass away as natu- 
rally and as healthfully as children cease to be minors." The kind 
treatment which the Gospel requires towards slaves, and the corre- 
sponding obligations of slaves to their masters, cultivate feelings 
of mutual regard, which open the way for everything good in due 
time. 

2. The eifect of Christianity upon the sanctity of the marriage 
state is of the same preparatory nature. The law of Eden regulates 
social life everywhere ; it protects husbands and wives on the plan- 
tation in their relations to each other and their children. The hus- 
band is " the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the Church." 
"As the Church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their 
own husbands in everything." Forcible disruptions of the mar- 



Emancipation and the Church. 49 

riage bond by sale, or by separation for life, are not authorized by 
the word of God. The Christian law of marriage holds inviolate 
the sacred privacies of home ; and the very difficulties of fulfilling 
the obligations of this law in a state of bondage, are suggestions in 
behalf of the natural state of liberty. 

3. The Gospel demands an adequate compensation of service. 
*' The labourer is worthy of his hire," whether he be a minister of 
the sanctuary or a plantation slave. He is entitled to food, raiment, 
and shelter, and to whatever additional remuneration and privilege 
justice demands, in view of all the circumstances in each case. This 
doctrine of equitable compensation gradually unsettles the arbitrary 
or despotic nature of the relation, and provides a natural progress 
towards the coming end. 

4. Religion protects the avails of human industry ; it favours 
the right of every man to the fruits of his labour. The laws of 
the State deny, in general, the right of slaves to any property ; 
but the Bible enjoins that which is "just and equal." In practice, 
Christian masters generally acknowledge, in a greater or less de- 
gree, the justice of this claim. Such a practice is a scriptural 
auxiliary to final emancipation. Ideas of property enlarge the 
mind, cherish thoughts of independence, cultivate habits of in- 
dustry, and possess a stimulating power upon the general character 
of the slave, which fits him for the exercise of all the rights of 
liberty, "when Providence shall open the way." 

5. The intellectual and moral elevation of the slaves is a neces- 
sary result of Christian treatment and instruction. The Bible is 
the universal text-book for mankind. Religious knowledge intro- 
duces all other knowledge. Any system that depends for its sup- 
port upon the ignorance and debasement of the people, is doomed, 
by the law of Providence, to extinction. It was the wish of a pious 
king that every man in his dominions might be able to read the 
Bible. A Christian slaveholder, in like manner realizes the obli- 
gations to give instruction to the slaves in his household. Religion 
tends to knowledge and virtue ; and knowledge and virtue tend to 
liberty. 

If these statements are correct, obedience to the special injunc- 
tions of the Bible, on the subject of slavery, tends to, and neces- 
sarily terminates in. Emancipation. The Church, therefore, may 
scripturally keep in view this great moral result, to the glory of 
her heavenly King. 

IV. I add, that the universal sfirit and fundamental principles 
of religion originate, and foster, sentiments favourable to the natu- 
ral rights of mankind. Born of the same race, inheritors of the 
same corrupt nature, heirs of the same Divine promises, partakers 
of the same redemption in Jesus Christ, subjects of the same re- 
surrection from the dead, and if saved, inhabitants of the same 

4 



60 Dr. Van Rensselaer s Second Reply. 

mansions of glory and immortality, the children of bondage are ele- 
vated by the Bible to a condition of co-equal spiritual dignity, that 
asserts, and must ultimately obtain, the full recognition of all their 
rights. 

Love to God and love to man, is the substance of the Divine re- 
quirements. "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself:" "All 
things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even 
so unto them." I am aware of the fanatical and unscriptural in- 
terpretations that have been sometimes put upon the great law of 
Christian reciprocity. I disclaim fellowship with unreasonable and 
false dogmas. But I think that the fair, scriptural interpretation 
of the rule of love bears irresistibly against i\\e perpetuity of slavery, 
as well as against its rash or precipitate overthrow. Christianity 
seeks to adjust the condition of society, on a basis of universal 
brotherhood, fitted to accomplish the sublime purposes of " peace 
on earth, and good-will towards men." 

In all periods of her history, the Church has identified herself 
with the well-being of the masses. Without interfering with poli- 
tical relations, she has never renounced her interest in the highest 
welfare of the human race, both in this life and the life to come. 
At the present day, the Presbyterian Church, in preaching the 
Gospel to the heathen, expends a part of her resources in sending 
physicians to heal their diseases, farmers to assist in agricultural 
management, mechanics to work at printing-presses, teachers to 
instruct in schools. The principle actuating this general policy 
is, that the temporal well-being of mankind is, wuthin certain limits, 
directly auxiliary to the preaching of the Gospel and the salvation 
of souls. So far as slavery is a question of " capital and labour," 
or so far as emancipation depends upon the laws of the State, 
ecclesiastical authority is impertinent ; but the moral results to be 
secured by the elevation and emancipation of the slaves, are within 
the true aim of the law of love and of Gospel grace. 

Can it be "extra-scriptural, unscriptural, and anti-scriptural," 
for the Church, besides seeking the eternal salvation of the slaves, 
to endeavour to introduce them to the blessings of personal liberty, 
" when Providence shall open the way ?" Certainly, nothing less 
than this result is to be desired, when Providence shall so arrange 
and prepare things, that the welfare of society and the claims of 
justice and mercy shall require the termination of involuntary ser- 
vitude. This supposes a great advance in the intellectual, moral, 
and religious condition of the slaves. Is it sinful to desire, and 
pray, and labour for such a state of things ? If so, I confess myself 
ignorant of the first principles of the doctrine of Christ. 

In bringing this long Letter to a close, I must ask your attention 
to one or two more things. 

If the Scriptures do not contain any deliverance on this subject, 



Emancipation and the Church. 51 

either "express or clearly implied," then the Christian, as a citizen, 
has no divine rule to guide his conduct. Emancipation, if it comes 
at all, comes not as a desired end, but as a mere incident. The 
whole question, with its moralities and economics, is left to the 
operation of natural laws. If not a scriptural end, it may, or 
may not, be reckoned within the range of private and public prayer, 
and of earnest Christian enterprise and activity. If "extra-scrip- 
tural, unscriptural, and anti-scriptural," might not some infer that 
it was sinful ? The motives that lead men to glorify God in 
labouring to remove social evils, are thus impaired in their force, 
if not rendered inoperative in this particular sphere. The effect of 
such doctrine in perpetuating slavery, cannot be concealed or 
denied. 

If I understand you, emancipation in Liberia is acknowledged to 
be a proper object of ecclesiastical action, for the reason, among 
others, that it passes by the question of " the general ultimate 
emancipation of the slaves" in this country. But is not the prin- 
ciple the same, wherever the result may be finally secured ? My 
statement leaves the time, place, and circumstances of emancipa- 
tion to the Providence of God ; whilst your view seems to admit 
the lawfulness of the end, provided that you yourself locate and 
define the land of liberty. Is not this a virtual surrender of the 
principle contained in your argument ? In your general senti- 
ments on Liberian Colonization, I cordially concur. 

One of the most painful things, allow me to say fraternally, in 
your Letter, is the low view of the natural rights of mankind, 
which pervades the discussion. I fully acknowledge the difficulties 
of emancipation, and most truly sympathize with my brethren, in 
Church and State, who are involved in the evils of this complicated 
system. But if we lose sight of, or depreciate principles, difficul- 
ties and dangers will increase on every side. Are there no eternal 
principles of justice, no standard of human rights, by which a 
system of servitude shall submit to be judged, and in whose pre- 
sence it shall be made to plead for justification ? Is civil liberty a 
mere abstraction ? Thanks be to God, the Presbyterian Church 
has been the advocate of freedom in every land and age. Long 
may she maintain this position of truth and righteousness, in the 
spirit of good-will to all men, bond and free ; and whilst she holds 
that slavery is not necessarily and in all circumstances sinful, may 
her testimony against the evils of the system, and in favour of 
emancipation, be clear, consistent, and unwavering, before God 
and the world ! 

Presbyterians at the North have remained steadfast in their 
integrity, amidst all the abolition agitation which has threatened 
injury, and even destruction, to the Church. We have deprecated 
this agitation, not simply on account of its own perverse nature, 



52 Dr. Van Rensselaer's Second Reply. 

but on account of its evil influence in provoking extreme views 
among our brethren at the South. The northern section of the 
Church, by its successful resistance to fanaticism, earnestly and 
fraternally appeals to the Presbyterians at the South, to remain 
equally true to the principles and the testimonies sanctioned by the 
unanimous voice of our General Assemblies, and by the higher 
authority of the Sacred Scriptures. 

I am yours, truly, 

C. Van Rensselaek. 



REPLY III. 

ON THE HISTORICAL ARGUMENT FOR SLAVERY. 

To THE Rev. George D. Armstrong, D.D. : — History teaches 
important lessons ; but I have several objections to the historical 
view presented in your letter as the basis of instruction. 

1. One of the forms of historical statement, liable to misconcep- 
tion, is that the Apostles maintained without qualification, that 
" slaveholding is not a sin." This mode of stating the doctrine is 
not, in my opinion, precisely scriptural. It leaves the impression 
that slavery is, always and everywhere, a lawful institution. All 
that the Scriptures authorize us to affirm, as I have endeavoured 
to show in my first letter, is that slaveholding is not a tnaluni in se, 
or in other words, that it is right or wrong, according to circum- 
stances. As this point lies at the basis of your historical sketch, I 
have deemed it important to notice it at the very beginning. 

2. In the second place, the assertion that " slaver^/ continued to 
exist everyivliere" is no evidence that Christianity everywhere ap- 
proved of it. Despotism and war prevailed in early times ; and 
although they still continue to exist throughout the world, the spirit 
of true religion has always been in opposition to their perpetuity. 
The simple fact of the long continuance of such an institution as 
slavery cannot be interpreted into a divine warrant. 

3. In the third place, your historical statement entirely over- 
looks the early influence of Christianity upon slavery. 

The religion of Christ was, for a long period, subjected to fierce 
persecutions, and rejected from the councils of the Roman Em- 
pire. When it finally secured a temporary triumph under Con- 
stantino, corruption almost simultaneously began its work. There 
are, nevertheless, many evidences of an advancing social and poli- 
tical movement, in the mitigation of the evils of slavery and in 
the measures of emancipation. From the first, " the humane 
spirit of our religion struggled with the customs and manners of 
this world, and contributed more than any other circumstance, to 
introduce the practice of manumission."* Christianity ameliorated 
the condition of slaves under the Roman Government, inclined 
Constantino to render their emancipation much easier than for- 
merly, and awakened a religious interest in the subject. "As slaves 
were formerly declared to be emancipated in the temple of the 

• Robertson. 



54 Dr. Van Rensselaer^s Third Reply. 

goddess Feronia, so afterwards, in accordance with the decrees of 
Constantine, they were throughout the Roman Empire, set free in 
the churches."'^ Sozomen, speaking of Constantine, says: " In re- 
ference to the bestowment of the better liberty (viz., Roman citi- 
zenship), he hiid down these laws, decreeing that all, emancipated 
171 the Church under the direction of the priests, should enjoy 
Roman citizenship. "f The Church sometimes paid for the ransom 
of slaves, especially for slaves or captives subjected to heathen or 
barbarian masters. " Out of the legitimate work of the faithful," 
say the Apostolic Constitutions, "deliver the saints, redeem the 
slaves, the captives. "J &c. Ignatius alludes likewise to the redeemed 
slaves at the expense of the community. § Clement of Rome also 
speaks of Christians who carried devotion so far as to sell them- 
selves to redeem others from slaver3^|| 

Large numbers of slaves were emancipated in the first ages of 
Christianity. One of our own distinguished writers, whose posi- 
tion, intellectual habits, and course of investigation have enabled 
him to give much attention to this subject, has the following re- 
marks : 

" Before the advent of Christianity, no axe had ever been laid at the 
root of slavery ; no philosopher had denounced it, and it does not appear 
to have been considered by any as an evil to be repressed. Nor did the 
apostles teach differently, but distinctly laid down rules for the conduct 
of master and slave ; thereby clearly recognizing the relation, without 
denouncing it as in itself sinful. Their Master's instructions were in- 
tended to make men what they should be, and then every institution, 
every law, and every practice inconsistent with that state, would fall 
before it. If a community of slaveholders, under Christian instruction, 
were gradually tending to the point of general emancipation, both masters 
and slaves would gradually be fitting for so great a change in their relative 
condition. It would be a subject of great interest to trace, in the early 
ages of Christianity, its influences upon the institution of slavery, so 
much in contrast with the movements or influences of paganism. During 
the first four or five centuries of the Christian era, emancipation of slaves 
hy converts to Chnstt'anify took place upon a laryc and progressively in- 
creasing scale, and continued until the occurrence of political events, the 
invasion of barbarians, and other causes, agitated the whole Christian 
world, and shook the very foundations of the social systems in which 
Christianity had made most progress. When Christianity sank into the 
darkness of the middle ages, the progress of emancipation ceased, because 
the influence which produced it ceased during that period to operate. The 
annals of emancipation in these primitive ages, if materials were extant 
for a full narrative, would be of extraordinary interest, and would fully 
reveal the eS'ects of our Saviour's precepts when brought to bear upon 
the hearts of men in their true spirit, even where the letter did not apply. 
Under paganism, slavery could never come to an end: under the conti- 
nual light of Christianity, it hastens to an inevitable end, but by that 

* Can. G4, Cod. Eccl. Africanse. t Sozomenus, lib. 1 ; Hist. Eccl. Chap. IX. 

I IV. 9. § Ep. ad Polyc. c. 4. |1 1 Ep. ad Cor. 



The Historical Argume7it for Slavery/. 55 

progress and in that mode ■which is best both for master and slave ; both 
being bound to love each other, until the door of emancipation is fully 
open without injury to either."* 

In addition to these interesting statements from Mr. Colwell, I 
offer to your consideration the following extracts from the admirable 
work of the Rev. Stephen Chastel, of Geneva, on the " Charity 
of the Primitive, Churches. "f 

" Between the Christian master and slave was no religious distinction j 
they came into the same sanctuary to invoke the same God, to pray, to 
sing together, to participate in the same mysteries, to sit at the same table, 
to drink of the same cup, and to take part in the same feast. How should 
this community of worship not have profoundly modified their mutual re- 
lations ? How could th'e master have continued to see in his slave that 
thi)}(/ which the Roman law permitted him to use and to abuse P Also, 
whatever might still be the force of habit and of manners, there were 
rarely seen in the Christian houses those masters, still less those pitiless 
mistresses, such as Seneca and Juvenal have painted to us ; the slave, 
there, had to fear neither the cross, nor tortures, nor abandonment in 
sickness, nor to be thrown off in his old age ; he had not to fear that he 
should be sold for the amphitheatre, or for some one of those infamous 
occupations which the Cburch reproved, and from which she struggled, at 
every price, to rescue her children. 

"Finally, a devoted and faithful slave always had, in a Christian house, 
the hope of recovering his liberty. It was not rare, without doubt, to see 
Pagans enfranchise their slaves; some even did it from motives of grati- 
tude or attachment; but ordinarily necessity, caprice, vanity, often even 
the most sordid calculations alone presided over the emancipation of slaves, 
and these miserable creatures, cast almost without resource into the midst 
of a society whose free labour found so little encouragement and employ- 
ment, hardly used their liberty except to do evil, and went for the most 
part to increase the crowd of proletarians and of beggars, so that it is not 
astonishing if the emperors had attempted, though without success, to 
limit, by their laws, the right of enfranchising. As to the Church, when 
she encouraged it, it was not as an interest, but as a favour; she exhorted 
the masters to liberate the slave as often as he was in a state to support 
himself. But tbe enfranchisement was not an abandonment; the Chris- 
tian remained the patron, in the best sense of that word, of those whom 
he had ceased to be the master of, and, in case of misfortune, the freed 
man found an almost sure resource in the aid of his brothers. The Church, 
which, by its moral influence, had worked to render him worthy of liberty, 
continued to protect him after he had attained it. The emancipation of 
slaves at this day would be less difficult and less dangerous if it was always 
done in this spirit."! 

* New Themes for the Protestant Clergy, by Stephen Colwell, Esq. 

t Translated by Professor Matile, and published by J. B. Lippincott & Co., Phila- 
deljihia, 1857. 

;f The Church has been thus unjustly accused of having, by the imprudence of her 
emancipations of slaves, caused the plague of pauperism. Manumission had been 
used with much less discretion at other epochs of Roman society. The one hundred 
thousand freedmen who, as early as from 240 to 210 previous to our era had been 



56 Br. Van Rensselaer 8 Third Reply. 

The " correctness" of these brief accounts of the early impression 
of Christianity upon slavery, "no one, I presume, will call in ques- 
tion ;" and they stand in delightful contrast with the injurious and 
unhistorical representations, quoted in your Letter from Dr. Hop- 
kins, Bishop of the Episcopal Church of Vermont. 

4. I take exception to the statement that slaves were always 
" held, ivitliout any reproach, even hy the bishops and clergy," 
down to the period of the abolition of slavery in Earope. Undoubt- 
edly, slaves might have been held, without any reproach, then as 
now, when the circumstances of society and the welfare of the 
slaves justified the continuance of the relation. The fact that, 
under Constantine, emancipation took place in the churches, shows 
that the act was regarded as peculiarly congenial with the spirit 
and principles of religion. Ward, in his Law of Nations, observes 
that "it is of little consequence to object that the custom of slavery 
remained for a great length of time, or that the Church itself was 
possessed of numbers of slaves. The custom of enfranchisement 
•was the effect, chiefly, of pious and Christian motives, and the 
example was generally set by the ministers of religioji." 

The same writer observes, in reference to later times, that, " in 
the opinion of Grotius, Christianity was the great and almost only 
cause of abolition. The professed and assigned reasons for most 
of the charters of manumissions, from the time of Gregory the 
Great [A.D. 600] to the thirteenth century, were the religious 
and pious considerations of the fraternity of men, the imitation of 
the example of Christ, the love of our Maker, and the hope of re- 
demption. Enfranchisement was frequently given on a deathbed, 
as the most acceptable service that could be ottered ; and when the 
sacred character of the priesthood came to obtain more universal 
veneration, to assume its functions was the immediate passport to 
freedom.'' 

History does not at all warrant the assertion that slaves have 
been always held " without any reproach." From the earliest 
period, the anomalous character of the relation, and its attending 
evils, have been recorded on the impartial, but obscure annals of 
the past. Not even in the dark middle ages was slavery ranked 
among irreproachable and permanent institutions. 

6. Another error in your historical sketch is, that, when the 
practice of slavery "died out" in Europe, the change was ^'- through 
the operation of ivorldly causes." It is surprising that two bishops 
of the Church should agree upon a statement, disowning the con- 
admitted to the privilege cf citizenship, the slaves liberated en masse hy the alternating 
politics of Marins and Sylla, the thousands of them who under the republic were 
daily liberated, either by will, to do honour to the funeral of their master, or by neces- 
sity, there being no food for them, or by revenge, to defeat the eagerness of creditors; 
all those freedmen, finally, who in Cicero's times were in a majority in the urban and 
rural tribes of Rome, formed elements much more threatening to the social well-being 
than were subsequently those freed by charity. (Moreau-Christophe, Du probl. de la 
mishe, Vol. I, p. 80, etc.) ' ' 



The Historical Argument for Slavery. 57 

nection between Christianity and the removal of this great social 
evil. The changes introduced into society, in the progress of ad- 
vancing civilization, have been hitherto ascribed by all Christian 
writers to the power of Christianity itself. But in the nineteenth 
century, the theory is advanced, that " worldly causes," and not 
religion, have been the efficient agents in the extinction of slavery ! 
If this be true in all previous ages, the inference is that it will be 
so in all time to come. This is a "short and easy method" of 
establishing ultra pro-slavery doctrine. But is the statement true? 
In addition to the testimony already adduced, which has a bearing 
upon this point, I venture to ask your attention to the following 
remarks, contained in the volumes of Mr. Bancroft, the historian. 
You will observe the prominence given to religion, by this distin- 
guished writer. 

"In defiance of severe penalties, the Saxons sold their own kindred 
into slavery on the continent; nor could the traffic be checked, till reli' 
gion, pleading the cause of humanity, made its appeal to conscience."* 

" What though the trade was exposed to the censure of the Church, 
and prohibited by the laws of Venice ? It could not be effectually 
checked, till, by the Venitian law, no slave might enter a Venitian ship, 
and to tread the deck of an argosy of Venice, became the privilege and 
the evidence of freedom." 

" The spirit of the Christian religion would, before the discovery of 
America, have led to the entire abolition of the slave-trade, but for the 
hostility between the Christian Church and the followers of Mahomet. 
In the twelfth century, Pope Alexander III, true to the spirit of his office, 
which, during the supremacy of brute force in the middle ages, made of 
the chief minister of religion the tribune of the people and the guardian 
of the oppressed, had written, that * Nature having made no slaves, all 
men hare an equal right to lihcrty.' "'j' 

"The amelioration of the customs of Europe had proceeded from the 
influence of religion. It was the clcnjy who had broken up the Christian 
slave-markets at Bristol and at Hamburg, at Lyons and at Rome. At 
the epoch of the discovery of America, the moral opinion of the civilized 
world had abolished the traffic of Christian slaves ; and was fast demand- 
ing the emancipation of the serfs: but bigotry had favoured a compro- 
mise with avarice ; and the infidel was not yet included within the pale of 
humanity."! 

" The slave-trade between Africa and America was, I believe, never 
expressly sanctioned by the See of Rome. The spirit of the Roman 
Church was against it. Even Leo X, though his voluptuous life, making 
of his pontificate a continued carnival, might have deadened the senti- 
ments of humanity and justice, declared, that ' not the Christian reli- 
gion onlg, hut nature herself, cries out against the state of slavery.' "§ 

These few extracts are sufficient, I think, to prove that some- 
thing more than " worldly causes" have contributed to remove 

» History of the United States, I, 162. t Ibid. 103. 

J Ibid. 165. § Ibid. 172. 



58 Dr. Van Rensselaer s Third Reply. 

slavery from European civilization. As long as Christlanitj exists 
upon the earth, and the consciences of its disciples are enlightened 
by the Spirit, a power will always be at work, higher than " worldly 
causes," tending to universal emancipation. Even these "worldly 
causes," to which allusion is made, are more or less controlled by 
the truth and influences of the Gospel. 

6. I turn to another error, viz. : " It was not until the latter 
part of the eighteenth century that a doubt was expressed, on 
either side of the Atlantic, in relation to the perfect consistency of 
slavery with the precepts of the Gospel." 

If I mistake not, the evidence, already adduced, will occasion 
very serious doubts in regard to the truth of the proposition, so 
far as it relates to the other side of the Atlantic. Let us, for the 
present, consider whether, on this side of the Atlantic, slavery and 
the Gospel were, always and everywhere, reckoned to be natural 
allies. 

The Puritans did, it is true, consider themselves justified by the 
Old Testament in retaining Indian captives as bondsmen, according 
to the policy of the Israelites towards the Pagan nations. The 
Indian prisoners were few in number, and their case was a per- 
plexing one. We do not justify Puritan reasoning on this subject; 
it was the reasoning of the day, both in Europe and in other parts 
of our own country. At that period, even white men were sold 
into slavery in Virginia. In the midst of such moral obtuseness, 
there were not wanting some signs of more correct views of human 
bondage, in New England. The following extracts are from Mr. 
Bancroft's history. The first paragraph relates to the sailing of 
the first vessel, owned in part by a member of the Church in 
Boston, to engage in the slave-trade. 

"Throughout Massachusetts, the cry of justice was raised against the 
owners as malefactors and murderers. Richard Saltoustall felt himself 
moved by his duty as a magistrate, to denounce the act of stealing ne- 
groes as ' expressly contrary to the law of God and the law of the coun- 
try ;' the guilty men were committed for the offence ; and, after advice 
with the elders, the representatives of the people, bearing ' witness against 
the heinous crimes of manstcaling,' ordered the negroes to he i-estored, at 
the puhlic charge, ' to their own country, with a letter expressing the in- 
dignation of the General Court' at their wrongs."* [This was in the year 
164G.] 

"When George Fox visited Barbadoes, in 1671, he enjoined it upon the 
planters, that they should ' deal mildly and gently with their negroes ; 
and that after certain years of servitude, ther/ should make them free.' 
The idea of George Fox had been anticipated by the fellow-citizens of 
Gorton and Roger Williams. Nearly twenty years had then elapsed 
since the representatives of Providence and Warwick, perceiving the 
disposition of people in the colony < to buy negroes,' and hold them ' as 
slaves forever,' had enacted that no ' hlaeh mankind,' shoidd, ' hi/ cove- 

, * Bancroft's History, I, 174. ■ - 



The Historical Argument for Slavery. 59 

nant, hand, or othericise,' be held to perpetual service ; the master, * at 
the end of ten years, shall set them free, as the manner is with English 
servants ; and that man that will not let' his slave ' go free, or shall 
sell him away, to the end that he may be enslaved to others for a longer 
time, shall forfeit to the colony forty pounds. Now, forty pounds was 
nearly twice the value of a negro slave. The law was not enforced ; 
but the principle lived among the people.' "* 

" The thought oi general emancipation early presented itself. Massa- 
chusetts, where the first planters assumed to themsleves < a right to treat 
the Indians on the foot of Cauaanites and Amalekites,' was always op- 
posed to the introduction of slaves from abroad ; and in 1701, the town 
of Boston instructed its representatives, ' to put a period to negroes being 
slaves.' "f 

It thus appears that, up to the beginning of the last century, 
there was a great deal of " doubt" in New England, in regard to 
" the perfect consistency of slavery with the precepts of the Gos- 
pel," Public opinion, however, seems to have afterwards relapsed 
into much indifference, until near the period of the Revolution, 
when Dr. Hopkins, of Newport, published a pamphlet on the 
" Slavery of the Africans, showing it to be the duty of the Ameri- 
can Colonies to emancipate all the African slaves. "J Dr. Hopkins 
apologizes for the want of conscience exhibited in New England by 
the " ignorance" of the owners of slaves ; and " although this has 
been a very criminal ignorance, yet professors of religion, and real 
Christians, may have lived in this sin through an ignorance con- 
sistent with sincerity, and so as to be acceptable to God, through 
Jesus Christ, in their devotions," &c. Public attention now be- 
came much directed to slavery, both at the North and at the 
South. 

The southern colonies had repeatedly remonstrated against the 
slave-trade. Judge Tucker, in his Notes on Blackstone, has col- w^ 
lected a list of no less than twenty-three acts, passed by Virginia, 
having in view the repression of the importation of slaves. The 
motives were various, political as well as moral. In 1772, Virginia 
sent a petition to the throne, declaring, among other things, that 
" the importation of slaves into the colonies from the coast of 
Africa, hath long been considered a trade of great inhumanity/." 

7. A very serious error in your letter, consists in attributing to 
Infidelity the awakened interest in Great Britain and the United ^ 
States, in the suppression of the slave-trade and the abolition of 
slavery. 

As if " worldly causes" were not low enough to account for the 
extinction of domestic servitude. Infidelity is summoned from the 
depths, as another ruling agent. This part of the solution of the 
question is your own, to which the instructions of Bishop Hopkins, 
allow me to say, naturally tended. 

I ask your attention to the fact, that the period in which the 

* Ibid. I, 174. I Ibid. Ill, 408. X Published in 177G. 



60 Dr. Van Ilensselaer s TJdrd Reply. 

greatest masters of Infidelity were prominent actors, was the very 
period in which the slave-trade was carried on with the greatest 
energy, and the conscience of the whole world slumbered most 
profoundly over emancipation. From the year 1700, till the 
American Revolution, more negroes had been exported from 
Africa than ever before. During this interval, lived Shaftesbury, 
Bolingbroke, Hume, Voltaire, Rousseau, and the French Encyclo- 
paedists, great and small. Mr. Bancroft remarks, with his usual 
historical accuracy, "The philosophy of that day furnished to the 
African no protection against oppression." England, under the 
ministry of Bolingbroke, and his successors in office, openly advo- 
cated the slave-trade. It was a time of infidelity, of Arian and 
Deistical encroachment, and of ecclesiastical domination. It was 
a fit time for the climax of the slave-trade. 

. ' ' " Loud and perpetual o'er the Atlantic waves, 

For guilty agx-s, rolled the tide of slaves ; 
A tide that knew uo fall, no turn, no rest — 
Constant as day and night, from East to West, 
Still wid'ning, deep'ning, swelling in its course, 
With boundless ruin and resistless force." 

This state of active kidnapping in Africa, received its first check, 
not from Infidelity, but from the religion and patriotism of the con- 
federated Colonies of North America. The delegates in Congress, 
without being specially empowered to do so, passed and promul- 
gated, on the 6th of April, 1776, several months before the Decla- 
ration of Independence, a resolution that no slaves should be im- 
ported into the Confederation. Thus did Christianity and Liberty 
triumph over wickedness and crime. 

The Northern States soon began to legislate in favour of eman- 
cipation. Under the impulses of a quickened sense of religious^obli- 
gation, and of political consistency, slavery was undermined at the 
North. Much feeling also existed against the institution at the 
South, especially in Virginia, where the introduction of an Eman- 
cipation Act into the legislature was seriously contemplated, after 
the slave-trade was prohibited. It was never understood that In- 
fidelity, as such, had any agency in these philanthropic measures 
throughout the country. Where religion failed to be prominent, 
patriotism supplied the motives of benevolent action. All the public 
documents of the day testify to the truth of this view of the subject. 

The philanthropists of England, moved by equally pure and dis- 
interested motives, aimed at the abolition of the slave-trade, simul- 
taneously with their brethren in America. Granville Sharp, Wil- 
berforce, Newton, Thornton, Scott, Macauhiy, and their noble 
coadjutors, were among the foremost of the religious men of their 
age. Seldom, indeed, has Christianity claimed a higher triumph 
in the history of civilization, than when acts were passed for the 
abolition of the African slave-trade, and public measures were 



TJie Sistorical Argument for Slavery. 61 

inaugurated for tlie abolition of slavery in America, and elsewhere. 
The religious world will be surprised to learn from Dr. Armstrong 
that Infidelity was the chief agent, whose culminating point was 
West Indian emancipation, under the auspices of England ! Call 
"West Indian emancipation a blunder, if you will — a political mis- 
take, a social wrong, a moral imbecility — but hesitate, before the 
earnest philanthropy of Christian England, in behalf of injured 
Africa and the rights of mankind, is stigmatized with the taint of 
infidel inception and success.* 

Your whole theory on this subject is utterly untenable. You 
might as well attempt to prove that the infidel philosophy on the 
subject 0^ civil government had its culminating triumph in the for- 
mation of the American Constitution^ as that the revived interest, 
in America and England, in the abolition of slavery, is indebted to 
the same low source for life and power. Washington, the repre- 
sentative man of his age, was a true representative of the Chris- 
tianity and patriotism of his country, when in his last will and 
testament, he placed on record his views of the rights of mankind, 
and gave freedom to all his slaves. 

8. Another historical error in your letter, is the declaration that 
good men, like Dr. Scott, have insidiously betrayed scriptural truth 
by erroneous expositions, and thus prepared the way for the most 
violent abolitionism. 

I think, in the first place, that you do injustice to Dr. Scott by 
an erroneous " exposition" of his views. That able and judicious 
commentator does not say, or mean, that the Christian master 
should "greatly alleviate or nearly annihilate," any evil which 
concerns his behaviour " to his servants." This is Dr. Armstrong's 
own " gloss." Dr. Scott says, that " Christian masters were in- 
structed to behave towards their slaves in such a manner as would 
greatly alleviate, or nearly annihilate the evils of slavery." The 
commentator well knew that, however exemplary might be the con- 
duct of " Christian masters" towards their own slaves, on their 
own plantations, some of the "evils of slavery," as a system, would 
still remain in existence. 

If Dr. Scott, in his other remarks, intended to express the 
opinion that the Apostles considered slavery to be in itself sinful, 
but were restrained by prudential considerations from enjoining 
emancipation, he was certainly wrong. It is probable that he 
merely intended to vindicate, on general principles, the true scrip- 
tural plan. However that may be, he was correct, when he added 
that " the principles of both the law and the Gospel, when carried 
to their consequences, will infallibly abolish slavery." Was he not 
authorized, in expounding Scripture, to give what he conceived to 
be the full meaning of the passage ? Dr. Hodge, in like manner, 
says in his commentary on Ephesians, 6 : 5, " The scriptural doc- 

* For one, I have not yet lost all confidence in the wisdom of this measure. 



62 Dr. Van Rensselaer s Third Reply. 

trine is opposed to the opinion that slavery is in itself a desirable 
institution, and as such to be cherished and perpetuated." 

Mr. Barnes's remarks, which you quote, I agree with you in re- 
pudiating. But he is as far from being an infidel as Dr. Scott. 
If Mr. Barnes goes a " bowshot beyond Dr. Scott," I think that, 
in regard to the connivance of either with Infidelity, you draw a 
bow "at a venture." 

Dr. Scott's commentaries were published in 1796. They have 
certainly had little influence in imposing Anti-slavery opinions upon 
the Presbyterian Church. As far back as 1787, our highest judi- 
catory uttered stronger declarations than are to be found in those 
commentaries. The Synod declared that it " highly approved of 
the general principles in favour of universal liberty that prevail in 
America, and the interest which many of the States have taken in 
promoting the abolition of slavery." 

Commentators, from the days of Dr. Scott, onward, naturally 
noticed the subject of slavery in its relation to Scripture, more 
than their predecessors. So far as their commentaries are erro- 
neous, they are to be condemned. Each is to be judged by him- 
self. I do not believe in the philosophical or infidel succession you 
have attempted to establish. 

9. A brief sketch of ultra Pro-slavery opinions may be fairly 
given as an offset to the Anti-slavery history of your Letter. 

Previous to the formation of the American Constitution, public 
opinion, in this country, had been gathering strength, adversely to 
the slave-trade and slavery. The first legislature of the State of 
Virginia prohibited the im.portation of Africans ; and some of her 
most distinguished public men were unfavourable, not only to the 
increase, but even to the continuance of slavery within her borders. 
The Congress of the old Confederation, with the unanimous consent 
of all the Southern as well as Northern States, provided, in 1787, 
that slavery should be forever excluded from the Northwest Terri- 
tory, which territory then constituted the whole of the public domain. 
In the same year, the framers of the Constitution of the United 
States enacted that the African slave-trade should cease in 1808, 
so far as the " existing States" were concerned ; reserving to Con- 
gress the right to prohibit it before that time in new States or 
Territories — a right which Congress exercised in 1804, by prohibit- 
ing the importation of Africans into the new Territory of Orleans. 

Daniel Webster, in the Senate of the United States, affirmed 
that two things " are quite clear as historical truths. One is, that 
there was an expectation that, on the ceasing of the importation of 
slaves from Africa, slavery would begin to run out here. That 
was hoped and expected. Another is, that as far as there was 
any power in Congress to prevent the spread of slavery in the 
United States, that power was executed in the most absolute 

manner, and to the fullest extent But opinion has changed 

— greatly changed — changed North and changed South. Slavery 



The Historical Argument for Slavery. 63 

is not regarded, at the South now, as it was then."* Without 
carrying this sketch into the details of modern party politics, which 
would be foreign to my purpose, it is sufficient to note that this 
change of sentiment, at the South, has grown more and more 
marked, down to the present time. Even the project of reviving 
the African slave-trade has been recently entertained in the legis- 
latures of several States. Slavery is now publicly advocated as a 
desirable and permanent institution, having a complete justification 
in the word of God. Its advocacy is, by others, placed on the 
infidel ground of the original diversity of races. In fact, is not 
Infidelity as busily engaged in vindicating, and propping up, ultra 
pro-slavery opinions at the South, as it has ever been in agitating 
its untruths, at the North ?f There is little religion in either ex- 
treme. It is to be hoped that the tendency on both sides of the 
question to a change from bad to worse, will be arrested in the 
good providence of God. 

10. Your historical sketch errs in reducing all opposition to 
slavery into the same category. 

A history of Anti-slavery opinions requires careful discrimination, 
in order to do justice to all parties. The "conservatives" differ 
fundamentally from the ultra faction, which denounces slavehold- 
ing as necessarily sinful, and which accepts no solution but imme- 
diate and universal emancipation. Nor do they, or can they, sym- 
pathize with the equally fanatical opinions on the other side. We 
profess to maintain the firm, scriptural ground, occupied by our 
Church from the beginning. Presbyterians at the North have 
been enabled, under God, to uphold the testimonies of the General 
Assembly in their incorrupt integrity. Will not our brethi-en at 
the South appreciate our position, and the service we have rendered 
to morals and religion? Your historical sketch confounds all 
varieties of opinion in opposition to the permanence of slavery, 
and reduces them to one common principle of evil. Omission, 
under such circumstances, is commission. It inflicts an injury 
upon your truest friends ; and more, it disparages the cause of 
truth and righteousness. Far be it from me to impute to you any 
intention of this kind. On the contrary, I am sure that you will 
gladly rectify the inadvertence. 

I rejoice in the belief that the Presbyterian Church is substan- 
tially united on the fundamental principles involved in this ques- 
tion. If any danger should hereafter threaten our unity, it will 
arise from the extreme advocates of slavery. So far as I have 
any personal knowledge of my brethren in the Southern section of 

• Mr. Webster emphatically stated, in the same speech, that, at the formation of 
the Constitution, "there was, if not an entire unanimity of sentiment, a general con- 
currence of sentiment running through the whole community, and especially entertained 
by the eminent men of all parts of the country," on this subject. 

f It is well known, that the infidel publication'of Gliddon and Agassiz, one of 
whose principal aims is to prove that the negro is not a descendant of Adam, has 
had an extensive circulation in the Southern States. 



64 Br. Van Rensselaer s Third Reply. 

the Church, or have observed their proceedings in the General 
Assembly, I have yet to learn that they are disposed to depart 
from our ancient Presbyterian testimonies. Few persons, on either 
side, seem inclined to adopt extreme opinions. Various statements 
in your Letters have excited, perhaps unreasonably, the apprehen- 
sion of a tendency in them to create and cherish divisions. One 
of the impressions, derived from the perusal of your third Letter, 
is that slavery is fortified by the Bible and the Church, and that 
the institution would be safe enough in perpetuity, if " worldly 
causes" would keep in the right direction, and Infidelity cease its 
assaults. Your historical account is, at least, so apologetical, that 
it may conciliate, and even stimulate, the ultra defenders of slavery. 

You rightly suggest that error has an insidious beginning. It is 
on this principle, doubtless, that ultra men at the North, and at 
the South, have succeeded in accomplishing much injury. The 
"classic story" of the fall of Troy, by means of the wooden horse 
filled with Grecian enemies, affords an instructive lesson. The 
enemies without the city would have built that structure in vain, if 
leaders within the city had not brought it through the walls. It is 
through the breaches, made by Christian chieftains, that Infidelity 
is drawn into our citadel. Extreme views, on either side, combine 
to overthrow the true doctrine of the Church. 

It may be affirmed, without boasting, and in humble gratitude to 
God, that the Presbyterian Church occupies a commanding posi- 
tion, at the present time, among the hosts of God's elect. Our 
declared principles on slavery, emancipation, and Christian fellow- 
ship will endure the scrutiny, and at last command the admiration 
of the world. Unterrified by Northern fanaticism, and unseduced 
by Southern, Presbyterians behold their banner floating peacefully 
over their ancient ramparts. With continued unity in our coun- 
cils, the cause of philanthropy and religion will, under God, be 
safe in our charge, and be handed down with increasing victories, 
from generation to generation. 

I am yours fraternally, 

C. Van Rensselaer. 



tjoiiikrs. 



67 



DK. ARMSTRONG'S FIRST REJOINDER. 

ON THE SCRIPTURE DOCTRINE OF SLAVERY. 

To THE Rev. C. Van Rensselaer, D.D.: 

In its first settlement by the white man, Kentucky was so often 
the scene of savage warfare as to have received the name of " the 
dark and bloody ground." The hardy pioneer as he scaled its 
mountains, wound along by the side of its rivers, or penetrated its 
forests, proceeded with wary step and slow, rifle in hand, and ready 
for instant conflict. Many a time has the motion caused by the 
winds of heaven, been thought to mark the presence of some lurk- 
ing foe; and many a time has the rifle-shot dissipated the traveller's 
fears, though it took no life. None but the fool would consider it 
an impeachment of the traveller's courage that he moved with cau- 
tion, nor of his wisdom, that he sometimes shot at the wind. 

The "slavery discussion" well deserves the title of "the dark 
and bloody ground" of modern polemics; the tomahawk and scalp- 
ing-knife are fit symbols of the weapons often used, whilst the 
"shriek for freedom," not unlike the Indian war-whoop, has lent 
its maddening influence to the fight. 

Aware of this, I am not surprised to find you, in your " Conser- 
vative Replies," charging upon me opinions which I do not enter- 
tain, and which — I write it after carefully reading over all I have 
published on the subject — I have not expressed. And you will not 
understand me as intending to impeach either your intelligence or 
your candour, when I add, you seem to me to have misapprehended 
the scope of my argument, and the position I have assumed, both 
in my " Christian Doctrine of Slavery" and in my " Letters," sub- 
sequently addressed to yourself. And lest you should think that, 
like the lawyers of old, " I am lading you with a burden, grievous 
to be borne, whilst I touch it not with one of my fingers," I will 
couple this charge with a confession, — I certainly misapprehended 
the position you intended to assume in the brief " book notice," 
which has given rise to this discussion — but of this, more hereafter. 

To guard against misapprehension, in what I now write, I shall 
make use of division into sections, and all such other appliances as 
are calculated to secure perspicuity. 

§ 1. True sense of the expression^ " tlie Christian doctrine of 
slavery.'' 

In a thorough examination of domestic slavery, some of the 
questions which claim consideration are religious questions, others 
are political. The whole doctrine of slavery is, in part, a Christian 
doctrine, which falls properly within the province of the Church, to 
be determined, taught, and enforced with her spiritual sanctions; 
and in part, a political doctrine, which it is the business of the 
statesman to expound, and the civil ruler to apply, in the exercise 



68 

of the authority which by God's ordinance belongs to them. In 
this, we fully agree. 

In attempting to draw the distinction between the Christian and 
the Political, let us substitute for the case of Domestic Slavery that 
of Civil Despotism. We both agree that the Bible places the two 
in the same category. There will, therefore, be no danger of being 
betrayed into error by the substitution, and we will thus be enabled 
to approach the subject in a way in which we will be less likely to 
be influenced by prejudice than if we approached it directly. 

I would make a statement in brief of the whole doctrine of Civil 
Despotism in some such terms as these, — and if you substitute 
Domestic Slavery for Civil Despotism in each several proposition, 
as you pass along, you will have my faith with respect to it also. 

1. Civil Despotism belongs " in morals to the adiaphora, to 
things indifferent. It is expedient or inexpedient, right or wrong, 
according to circumstances." 

2. As compared with other forms of civil government, " in this 
present evil world," it belongs to a lower state of Christian civili- 
zation in the subject, than limited monarchy or republicanism. 

3. The question of its continuance in any particular instance, 
should be determined by the consideration of "well-being" "or the 
general good." 

4. So long as Civil Despotism lawfully continues among any 
people, the Christian subject is bound to obedience; and, the 
Church is bound to respect the institution, and to instruct the 
people in their duties, as those duties are set forth in the word of 
God. 

To this statement, in its several particulars, I do not think that 
you will object. 

How much of this doctrine is Christian, as contradistinguished 
from Political, and therefore falls properly within the province of 
the Church to teach and enforce ? 

I answer. Just so much of it as is taught in the word of God, 
and no more. In this, as in all similar cases, a part of the truth 
is taught us in the word of God; another part, we learn in the use 
of that reason which God has given for our guidance in such matters. 
The latter will never be inconsistent with the former ; though it 
will be in addition to it, and therefore, distinct from it. 

The question then — How much of this doctrine is properly Chris- 
tian ? resolves itself into this other — How much of this doctrine 
is distinctly taught us in the word of God ? To this, I reply — 

1. The word of God teaches that so long as a despotic govern- 
ment lawfully continues among any people, rulers and subjects alike 
are bound to discharge the duties belonging to their several sta- 
tions, and the Church is bound to respect the institution, and by 
her teaching and discipline to enforce the discharge of duty, as 
that duty is set forth in the word of God. 

2. The word of God teaches that despotism is not a sinful form 



69 

of government, and is not to be treated as an "offence" by the 
Church. 

Does any one object to the terms in which the second proposi- 
tion is stated ? My reply is — This is just the truth, both as to 
substance and form, presented us in the word of God. " Let every 
soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power 
but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever, 
therefore, resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God ; and 
they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation." (Rom. 
13 : 1-4.) For an admirable exposition of this passage, see Dr. 
Hodge's Commentary. 

Does any one ask how is this statement to be reconciled with 
that already made, when setting forth what I received as the ivhole 
doctrine of civil despotism ? My reply is — I see no discrepancy 
between them. The one statement is more comprehensive than the 
other, and fairly includes it. 

When I write, " Civil despotism is expedient or inexpedient, 
rigid or W7'ong, according to circumstances," — I do not mean lorong 
in the proper sense of sinful. Should any Christian man, at the 
present day, avow the belief that a despotic government would 
better secure "the general good" of our people, than the form of 
government under which we live — and I have heard such an opi- 
nion avowed more than once — I should controvert his opinion as 
wrong, but I should not denounce him as a sinner for holding it. 
Should he, in any lawful manner, lawful under God's law, attempt 
to replace our republican by a despotic government, I should resist 
him, in my character of a citizen; but I have no authority to treat 
him as an offender^ in my character of a ruler in the Church. But 
should any Christian man "resist," in the sense in which Paul 
uses that word, in Rom. 13:2, our republican government, and 
more especially if he taught others so to do, I should at once 
charge him with sin, and treat him as an "offender." 

When I write, "Civil despotism is not a sinful form of govern- 
ment," the idea that where such a government exists, it must of right 
always continue, is no more implied, than the doctrine of "passive 
obedience" is implied in Paul's words, written when Nero was 
emperor, "Whosoever, therefore, resisteth the power, resisteth the 
ordinance of God ; and they that resist shall receive to themselves 
damnation." Or the doctrine of "the divine right of kings," is 
implied in Peter's words, "Submit yourselves to every ordinance 
of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king as supreme, 
or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the pun- 
ishment of evil-doers, and for the praise of them that do well." 

In interpreting the language of Scripture, or the language used 
in setting forth the Scriptu7'e or Christian doctrine, on such a sub- 
ject as this, we must bear in mind the admitted truth, that the 
Scriptures were given to teach us religion and not politics; and 
all that needs to be shown, respecting any political right or doc- 
trine, commended to us as true by reason, is, that it is not in con- 



flict ^vitli the word of God. The "right of revolution," i, e., the 
right of a people to change their form of government, is a political 
right — the doctrine of revolution is a political doctrine; and, there- 
fore, we have no reason to expect that they will be taught us in 
the word of God. I receive them as true, upon the authority of 
reason. Receiving them upon this authority, it is enough for me, 
it is all that I have a right to expect, that it shall be clear ; and I 
think that it is clear that the Scriptures teach nothing at variance 
"with them. 

Does any one ask, why insist upon the statement " Civil despot- 
ism is not a sinful form of government, and is not to be treated as 
an 'offence' by the Church," when I admit the truth of the other, 
" Civil Despotism belongs, in morals, to the adiaphora, to things 
indifferent ; it is expedient or inexpedient, right or wrong, accord- 
ing to circumstances?" I answer — Because I am professing to 
give a statement of the Christian or Scriptural doctrine, i. e., what 
the word of God teaches, respecting civil despotism. The first 
statement does this; the latter does more than this. The first 
statement sets forth truth which must bind the conscience, and 
exactly defines the limits of the Church's power. The latter, though 
I receive it as all true, does neither the one nor the other. 

As already intimated, if you will substitute domestic slavery for 
civil despotism throughout this section, you will have a statement 
of what I believe respecting that subject. In my book, " The 
Christian Doctrine of Slavery," I have written, " Throughout, the 
author has kept these two ends in view. 1. A faithful exhibition 
of the doctrine respecting slavery taught by Christ and his Apos- 
tles. Nothing which they taught has been intentionally omitted. 
No topic which they omitted — however essential to a full discus- 
sion of slavery as a civil and political question, it may be — has 
been introduced ;" and when stating the question to be discussed, 
I stated it in these terms, " What do Christ and his Apostles — 
commissioned by him to complete the sacred canon, and perfect the 
organization of the Church — teach respecting slavery, and the re- 
lation in which the Church stands to that institution?" (See p. 8.) 
The reply given to this question — " They teach that slaveholding 
is not a sin in the sight of God, and is not to be accounted an 
' offence' by his church" (see p. 8), &c., is, I yet think, the correct 
reply ; and after examining your principal objections to it, I will 
briefly state some additional reasons for thinking so. 

§ 2. Statement of the difference between us. 

In your first letter you write, "I now proceed to the subject of 
your first letter, viz. : the proper statement of the scriptural doc- 
trine of slavery." 

" Your statement is, ' slaveholding is not a sin in the sight of 
God, and is not to be accounted an offence by his church.' " 

" My statement is, ' slaveholding is not necessarily and in all 
circumstances sinful.' " 

Simply calling your attention to the fact that it is " the scrip- 



71 

TURAL DOCTRINE," i. e., what the word of God teaches respecting 
slavery, for which we are seeking a brief expression, in general 
terms — I accept your statement of the difference between us. 

§ 3. TJie General Assembly's paper of 1845. 

The correctness of your " form of statement" you think con- 
firmed by the coincidence with the testimonies of the Presbyterian 
Church — while of mine, you write, " whatever added explanations 
may cause it to approximate to the language of the General As- 
sembly, the naked words are as dissimilar, as a leafless tree is from 
one of living green." 

In proof of this you make the following five quotations from the 
paper adopted by the General Assembly in 1845, viz. : 

1. " The question, which is now unhappily agitating and dividing 
other branches of the Church, is, whether the holding of slaves is 
under all circumstances, a heinous sin, calling for the discipline of 
the Church." 

2. " The question which this Assembly is called upon to decide 
is this: Do the Scriptures teach that the holding of slaves, without 
regard to circumstances, is a sin ?" 

3. " The Apostles did not denounce the relation itself as sin- 
ful." 

4. " The Assembly cannot denounce the holding of slaves as 
necessarily a heinous and scandalous sin." 

5. " The existence of domestic slavery, under the circumstances 
in which it is found in the southern portion of the country, is no 
bar to Christian communion." 

Such are your quotations. Did it escape your notice, my good 
brother, that the first two of your quotations are not deliverances 
of the Assembly, but simply statements of what Abolitionists were 
contending for in other churches, and what certain Abolition memo- 
rialists had demanded of them ; and that the second two, are the 
answers of the Assembly to this demand — where the answer natu- 
rally and properly takes its form from that of the demand to which 
it is an answer. This, which appears upon the face of the quota- 
tions, is placed beyond all d©ubt when we turn to the paper 
adopted by the Assembly, and examine them in the connection in 
Avhich thsy occur. In so far, then, as these quotations are relied 
upon as authority for "language" or "a form of expression," it 
is the authority of the Abolitionists, and not of the Assembly, 
which they aff'ord ; an authority of which we may say, as has been 
said of poor land, " the more a man has of it, the worse he is 
off." 

Your last quotation, is a proper deliverance of the Assembly. 
It is a part of the first of the two resolutions with which the paper 
adopted by the Assembly closes — resolutions, in which that venerable 
body give a summary of the principles before stated in a practical 
form, i. e., as in their judgment, those principles apply to slave- 
holding " in the southern portion of our country." But the autho- 
rity of that quotation is, I think, clearly on my side and not on 



yours ; — certain I am, if you had written, slaveholding " in the 
circumstances in which it exists in the southern portion of our 
country" is not sinful, I should never have thought of objecting to 
your statement. 

The deliverance, in general terms, of the Assembly of 1845, is 
in these words, " The Assembly intend simply to say, that since 
Christ and his inspired Apostles did not make the holding of slaves 
a bar to communion, we, as a court of Christ, have no authority to 
do so ; since they did not attempt to remove it from the Church by 
legislation, we have no authority to legislate on the subject," &c. 
This deliverance is a scriptural one, and covers all the ground that 
my " statement," fairly interpreted, does. 

§ 4. Dr. Hodge s Essay. 

You make certain quotations from Dr. Hodge's celebrated article 
on Slavery — one of the ablest articles which has appeared on this 
subject, and an article which claims particular attention from the 
connection in Avhich it stands, as a matter of history, with the 
position of the Presbyterian Church, 0. S., in which he adopts a 
" form of expression" similar to yours, viz. : 

(1.) "An equally obvious deduction is, that slaveholding is not 
necessarily sinful." 

(2.) "Both political despotism and domestic slavery belong in 
morals to the adiaphora, to things indifferent. They may be expe- 
dient or inexpedient, right or wrong, according to circumstances. 
Belonging to the same class, they should be treated in the same 
way. Neither is to be denounced as necessarily sinful, and to be 
abolished immediately under all circumstances." 

(3.) " Slavery is a question of circumstances, and not a malum 
in se." " Simply to prove that slaveholding interferes with natural 
rights, is not enough to justify the conclusion that it is necessarily 
and universally sinful." 

(4.) " These forms of society are not necessarily, or in them- 
selves, just or unjust ; but become one or the other according to 
circumstances." 

(5.) " Monarchy, aristocracy, democracy, domestic slavery, are 
right or wrong, as they are for the time being conducive to this 
great end, or the reverse." 

(6.) " We have ever maintained that slaveholding is not in itself 
sinful ; that the right to personal liberty is conditioned by the 
ability to exercise beneficially that right." 

(7.) " Nothing can be more distinct than the right to hold slaves 
in certain circumstances, and the right to render slavery perpetual." 

In these quotations, I cheerfully grant, that the language of Dr. 
Hodge is similar to yours. But then, I must ask you to notice, 

1. In several of them he is, obviously, meeting the arguments 
and assailing the positions of the Abolitionists, and his statements 
naturally and properly take their form from those of his opponents, 
and, 

2. In others, he is stating the doctrine of slavery, as it presents 



73 

itself when deduced from general principles, i. e., he is stating the 
wliole doctrine of slavery, without attempting to distinguish between 
the scriptural and the political in that doctrine. Fairly inter- 
preted, there is nothing in any of these statements quoted by you, 
from which I have any disposition to dissent. 

But listen to Dr. Ilodge, as he states the doctrine of slavery 
directly deducible from the word of God, — and I quote from the 
same essay. 

(1.) " "When Southern Christians are told that they are guilty of 
a heinous crime, worse than piracy, robbery, or murder, because 
they hold slaves, when they know that Christ and his Apostles 
never denounced slaveholding as a crime, never called upon men 
to renounce it as a condition of admissio7i into the Church, they 
are shocked and offended, without being convinced." (Hodge's 
Essays and Reviews, p. 484.) 

(2.) " Our argument from this acknowledged fact is, that if God 
allowed slavery to exist, if he directed how slaves might be law- 
fully acquired, and how they were to be treated, it is vain to con- 
tend that slaveholding is a sin, and yet profess reverence for the 
Scriptures.'" (p. 492.) 

(3.) " As it appears to us too clear to admit of either denial or 
doubt, that the Scriptures do sanction slaveholding ; that under the 
old dispensation it was expressly permitted by divine command, 
and under the New Testament is nowhere forbidden or denounced; 
but, on the contrary, acknoivledged to he consistent tvith the Chris- 
tian character and prof ession (that is, coyisistent tvith justice, mercy, 
holiness, love to God and love to 7nan), to declare it to he a heinous 
crime, is a direct impeachment of the word of Grod." (p. 503.) 

If the language of Dr. Hodge, in the quotations which you have 
made, gives countenance to your " form of expression," does not 
his language in those which I have made, give equally distinct 
countenance to mine ? And notice, here — 

(1.) My quotations are exactly "in point," since they cover the 
precise question respecting an expression for the Scriptural doc- 
trine of slavery — whilst yours are not " in point." 

(2.) Dr. Hodge uses this language without intending to teach, or 
being thought to teach " the permanence of slavery, as an ordi- 
nance of God, on a level with marriage or civil government." (Dr. 
Van Rensselaer's Sec. Let.) 

(3.) The Essay of Dr. Hodge, from which these quotations are 
made, together with Dr. Baxter's " Essay on the Abolition of 
Slavery," published the same year (1836), stand in intimate historic 
connection with the position respecting slavery assumed by the 
Presbyterian Church, Old School, in its separation from the New. 
Beyond all question, they had more to do in determining that posi- 
tion than any other papers or speeches whatsoever. Why then 
should my "language" sound "like an old tune with iinplcasant 
alterations'' (Dr. Van Rensselaer's First Letter), when it is precisely 
similar to that used by them, at that time ? 



v/^ 



74 

§ 5. "^ iveapon to do battle with." 

You object to my statement because, you think, "as a weapon 
to do battle with, it invites assault without the power to repel. It 
lacks the Scriptural characteristic of fighting a good fight. It 
carries with it no available and victorious force." 

If this ojnnion of yours be well-founded, it expresses a very 
serious objection to my "form of expression." The great conflict 
of the Church of God, in our country and our day, is her conflict 
with Abolitionism ; and it becomes her to arm herself with weapons 
which will not disappoint her in the hour of trial. 

As an offset to your opinion, let me state a. fact, in part known 
to the public already, through another channel ; and let me say 
with Paul, if I seem to have " become a fool in glorying, ye have 
compelled me." 

In the Presbyterian Herald, May 7th, 1857, the editor, after 
stating, at some length, his reasons for such a course, writes — 
"We wrote a letter, last winter, to Rev. Mr. Dexter, the leading 
editor of one of their papers at Boston, The Congregationalist, 
proposing to him to choose one of his brethren, in whose candour, 
ability, learning, and Christian temper, he had confidence, and we 
would select an Old School Presbyterian minister of the same cha- 
racter, and let the two discuss, in our respective columns, the ques- 
tion whether the New Testament teaches that slaveholding should 
be made a term of communion in Christ's Church, or, in other 
words, whether it teaches that it is inconsistent Avith Christian cha- 
racter to hold slaves ; the articles of each writer to be published 
simultaneously in the two papers, and afterwards in book form, 
under the joint supervision of the editors of the two papers. To 
this letter we received a very kind and courteous reply, accepting 
our proposition conditionally. We named the Rev. George D. 
Armstrong, D.D,, pastor of the Presbyterian Church, in Norfolk, 
Virginia, as our selection ; and requested the Rev. Mr. Dexter to 
select some New England man of equal standing, and put the cor- 
respondence as to the precise question to be discussed, into their 
hands. Without going into further details, we will only add, that 
the negotiations for a discussion have failed, for the present at 
least; and Dr. Armstrong has prepared a small work for the press, 
entitled 'The Christian Doctrine of Slavery.' After the issue of 
the work, the proposed discussion of its positions may yet take 
place in the columns of the Herald and Congregationalist." Thus 
much writes Dr. Hill. 

I will now add, that "the negotiations for a discussion failed," 
because we could not agree upon such a statement of the question 
to be discussed, as seemed fair to both parties. When this result 
became evident, I made the proposition to publish my argument — 
as I subsequently did ; and then, to make this published argument 
the starting-point for a discussion, in the form of review and re- 
joinder ; the terms, in other respects, remaining as before. To 
the fairness of this proposition, no objection was made. As soon 



75 

as printed, two copies were sent to the other party. And, although 
a year has now ehipsed, neither Dr. Hill nor I have heard anything 
of the proposed discussion from that day to this. 

Such is mjfact, which, pardon me for saying it, does not agree 
very well with your opinion. And I am sure you will not say, as 
was once said by a good man, who shall be nameless, in circum- 
stances somewhat similar, "so much the worse for the fact then." 

§ 7. Objections to Dr. Van Rensselaer s statement. 

In my "first letter" I stated two objections to your "form of 
statement," both of which you seem to have misapprehended. I 
must, therefore, restate them, and add some further explanation. 

" 1. It is an unusual form of stating ethical propositions such 
as this, and though it is broad enough to acquit the slaveholding 
member of the Church, it gives to his acquittal a sort of ' whip, 
and clear him air,' — pardon my use of this homely expression ; I 
can find no other which will so well convey the exact idea I wish to 
give utterance to — which seems to me in contrast with all the New 
Testament deliverances on the subject." 

A "whip, and clear him" verdict, is a verdict given by a jury, 
when they believe a prisoner guilty, though his guilt cannot be 
proven ; and being compelled by the evidence to acquit him, they 
yet award him a flogging, on the score of their belief of his bad 
character in general ; and does not mean, as you have interpreted 
the phrase, "strike first, and then acquit." 

God's people, whose lot in his providence has been cast in the 
midst of slavery, have not only weighty responsibilities, and re- 
sponsibilities to be met in the midst of many difficulties, arising 
out of their connection with that institution, but they have had 
much to bear from their Christian brethren in other parts of our 
country, in the twenty-five years last past. Misapprehension 
and personal abuse are the least of their wrongs. To be told, as 
they have been, even at the table of our common Lord, "Stand 
aside, for I am holier than thou," they might well have borne, 
comforted by the assurance that though man might condemn them, 
"the Lord of glory" would not. But the worst of their wrong is, 
they have been constantly hindered in doing "God's work in God's 
way," with respect to the slave race among them, hymen "desiring 
to be teachers of the law, but understanding neither what they say, 
nor whereof they affirm." 

Do not think that I mean to class you among this number. I 
know well that your views and your uniform course of conduct 
have been very difterent from theirs. But I object to your " form 
of expressing" the Scripture doctrine of slavery, because your 
language does seem to countenance such views as theirs ; and, in 
this particular, is in contrast with the language uniformly used by 
inspired Apostles when treating of this subject. Let Dr. Barnes 
specify the '''•circumstances^'" and I doubt whether even he would 
object to your statement — " Slaveholding is not necessarily and in 



76 

all circumstances sinful." At any rate, he distinctly admits that 
Abraham's slaveholding was no sin. 

2. But my principal objection to your " form of expression," as 
a statement of the Scripture doctrine of slavery/, is that which, in 
my first letter, I set forth in the words: " When taken apart 
from all explanations^ it does not fairly cover all the ground 
which the doctrine of Christ arid his inspired Apostles covers.'" 

The argument on this point, embodied in the Assembly's paper 
of '45, and that of Dr. Hodge's Essay, is substantially the same 
wdth that wliich I have presented, more in detail, in my " Christian 
Doctrine of Slavery." Let us look at this argument, and see 
just what ground it does fairly cover. 

(1.) The Assembly of '45 say — " Since Christ and his inspired 
Apostles did not make the holding of slaves a bar to communion, 
we, as a court of Christ, have no authority to do so." 

Give this argument, now, the form of a syllogism, that we may 
examine it the more carefully : 

A. Whatever Christ and his inspired Apostles refused to make a 
bar to communion, a court of Christ has no authority to make 
such. 

But, Christ and his inspired Apostles did refuse to make slave- 
holding a bar to communion. 

Tiierefore, a court of Christ has no authority to make slave- 
holding a bar to communion. 

(2.) The Assembly add — " Since they," i. e., Christ and his 
inspired Apostles, " did not attempt to remove it from the Church 
by legislation, we have no authority to legislate on the subject." 

Give this, also, the form of a syllogism : 

B. Whatever Christ and his inspired Apostles did not attempt to 
legislate out of the Church, the Church has no authority to remove 
by legislation. 

But, Christ and his inspired Apostles did not attempt to legislate 
slaveholding out of the Church. 

Therefore, the Church has no authority to remove slaveholding 
from her body by legislation. 

Dr. Hodge writes, as quoted in Sec. 4, " As it appears to us too 
clear to admit of either denial or doubt, that the Scriptures do 
sanction slaveholding ; that under the old dispensation it tvas ex- 
pressly permitted hy divine comnumd, and under the Neiv Testa- 
ment is noivhere forbidden or denounced, but, on the contrary, 
acknoivledged to be consistent with the Christian character and 
profession {that is, consistent zvith justice, mercy, holiness, love to 
God, and love to man), to declare it to be a heinous crime, is a 
direct impeachment of the word of G-od." 

Give this the form of a syllogism : 

C. To declare that to be a sin wdiich, under the old dispensation, 
was expressly permitted by divine command, and, under the New 
Testament, is nowhere forbidden or denounced, but, on the con- 



77 

trary, acknowledged to be consistent with the Christian character 
and profession (that is, consistent with justice, mercy, holiness, 
love to God, and love to man), is a direct impeachment of the 
word of God. 

But slaveholding, under the old dispensation, was expressly per- 
mitted, and under the New Testament, was acknowledged to be 
consistent with the Christian character and profession, &c. 

Therefore, to declare slaveholding a sin is a direct impeachment 
of the word of God. 

Now, notice — (1.) The major premise in each of these three syl- 
logisms, is a statement of a principle, in its nature unchangeable ; 
in fact, just the " VII" of the " preliminary principles," in the 
" Form of Government of the Presbyterian Church," — " That all 
Church power, whether exercised by the body in general, or 
in the way of representation by delegated authority, is only 
ministerial and declarative ; that is to say, that the Holy Scrip- 
tures are the only rule of faith and manners; that no Church judi- 
catory ought to pretend to make laws to bind the conscience in 
virtue of their own authority ; and that all their decisions should 
be founded upon the revealed will of God." 

(2.) The minor premise in each is a statement of fact, which, if 
it be a true statement, must always continue such. 

Whatever then the argument expressed in these syllogisms 
proves, it proves not for this or that age, but for all time, until 
Christ shall come the second time and bring to a close the present 
dispensation. 

If the argument in syllogism A, proved that the Church had "no 
authority to make slaveholding a bar to communion" in 1845, it 
proves that the Church never will have such authority. 

If the argument in syllogism B, proves that the Church had "no 
authority to legislate slaveholding out of itself" in 1815, it proves 
that she never will have such authority. 

If the argument in syllogism C, proved that " to declare slave- 
holding a sin was a direct impeachment of the word of God" in 
1837, it must prove the same now, and will prove the same until 
we get a new word of God as our rule of faith. 

As already remarked, the argument presented in these syllogisms 
is the same in substance, which I have presented more in detail, in 
my " Christian Doctrine of Slavery." 

Is this argument a sound one? Are the premises fairly stated? 

If you answer yes — Then, I say, nothing can be more clear than 
that your statement, "slaveholding is not necessarily and in all 
circu7nstances sinful," "does not fairly cover all the ground which 
the doctrine of Christ and his inspired Apostles covers." There 
are no '''"circumstances" introduced into the premises, and hence, 
according to a fundamental principle of logic, none can be intro- 
duced into the conclusion. It is true, that taken in connection 
with your " explanation," that you do not wish to see our Church 



depart from "the scriptural position" which she has assumed, it 
does practically, for the present, cover that ground, — but no state- 
ment short of what you term my " too broad conclusion" will fully 
and fairly cover that ground. 

If you answer No — Then, I say, point out distinctly, where the 
fallacy in the argument is. If " circumstances'' ought to have 
been introduced into the premises — state, distinctly (1) in which 
premise, and (2) what the ^^circumstances" are. Meet the argu- 
ment " fairly and squarely," for thus only can you influence the 
opinions of thinking men. To help you in this, is one object I have 
had in view, in giving to the argument the logical form of the 
syllogism. 

For myself, I believe the argument is a sound one; I believe the 
premises are fairly and fully stated ; and, therefore, I find myself 
shut up to the conclusion, that " slaveholding is not a sin in the 
sight of God, and is not to be accounted an oflFence by his Church." 
And I feel myself confirmed in this judgment, by the fact that the 
General Assembly, and Dr. Hodge, when they attempt to state the 
Scripture premises, state them, substantially, as I do. 

Of this I am certain. The prejudices of my early life and edu- 
cation have not helped me forward towards the conclusion I have 
reached. Their influence was all the other way. Of this, also, I 
am certain. My political opinions have not helped me. Their 
influence, too, has been all the other way. And I think I can add, 
my interest has not swayed me. I am not a slaveholder — though 
Dr. McMaster does name me among the "slave-driving hierarchs" 
of the South. I never have been a slaveholder. And if I am 
labouring in the cause of Christ, at the South, to-day, it is not 
because inviting fields of labour in the Free States have not been 
offered me. If I know anything of the history of my opinions on 
this subject, they are opinions which have been formed under the 
influence of a careful and prayerful study of God's word. And 
let me here add, that I believe, where our Northern brethren have 
spent one hour in the careful and prayerful study of what God's 
word teaches on the subject of slavery, we, of the South, have 
spent ten. And this ought to be so, for upon us, in God's provi- 
dence, the immediate responsibility with respect to slavery rests. 

Near the close of your Second Letter, you ask, — " Are there no 
eternal principles of justice, no standard of human rights, by which 
a system of servitude shall submit to be judged, and in whose pre- 
sence it shall be made to plead for justification ?" I answer, Yes, my 
good brother, there are eternal principles of justice, there is a standard 
of human rights; — and I add, there is a Judge too, who "sitteth 
at the top of judgment," whose very " foolishness is wiser than the 
wisdom of man;" by whom those "eternal principles of justice," 
and this " standard of human rights" have been applied to the very 
case before us. His decision is " of record." And having this 
decision, we will never consent to have the case appealed to any 
lower tribunal. 



79 

§ 8. JVJiat my statement does not include. 

Knowing how difficult a matter it is to do an opponent justice 
on this " dark and bloody ground" of modern polemics, even when 
our purposes are most fair — and I do not question that yours are 
such — let me, in concluding this letter, state distinctly, certain 
things which, I think, are neither included nor implied in the state- 
ment of the Christian doctrine of slavery for which I am contend- 
ers' 

1. It does not imply a sanction of the incidental evils, attaching 

to slavery in PauVs day, or as it exists now. 

The word of God did not teach then, nor does it teach now, that 
the master may sinlessly withhold from his slave "kind treatment," 
or "adequate compensation for service," or perpetuate "his igno- 
rance and debasement." 

As I shall have to speak of this subject more fully in my next 
letter, I content myself, for the present, with remarking, that the 
only slavery which the Bible justifies now, or ever did justify, is a 
slavery which "is a condition of mutual rights and obligations, the 
right of the master being to receive obedience and service, the 
right of the slave to receive that which is just and equal." (Chn. 
Doc. Slav. p. 105.) 

This, if I mistake not, is just what you and Dr. Spring, as quoted 
by you, most improperly call '^apprenticeship.'" The difference 
between slavery and apprenticeship, is not a difference in the degree 
of rigor with which one is made to serve. The peculiarity of ap- 
prenticeship, as both the use and the etymology of the term determine 
— (see Webster's Dictionary) — is, that the service is rendered with 
an eye to instruction in some art or calling ; and with no sort of 
propriety can the service authorized by Moses' law, either that of 
the Jew or the Gentile, be called an apprenticeship ; since it was 
not a servitude authorized or entered into with any such view as 
this. 

And, whilst speaking of this misuse of terms, let me refer to 
another, viz., "Slavery in itself considered." What is the proper 
meaning of that expression ? I should answer — slavery, distinct 
from the incidental evils which may attach to it in any particular 
age or country; and, thus understood, the formula, "Slaveholding, 
in itself considered, is not sinful," would be perfectly satisfactory 
to me — would cover all the ground which I think the word of God 
covers. But, most unfortunately, modern usage, especially the 
usage of writers in the slavery controversy, has attached a different 
meaning to the phrase, a meaning which you have correctly set 
forth in your First Letter — "Slaveholding, in itself considered, is 
not sinful ; that is to say, it is not a nudum in se; or, in other 
words, it is a relation tvhiclt may he justified hy circumstances." 
For this reason, and this alone, I did not use this formula in my 
"Christian Doctrine of Slavery," and cannot accept it now. 

2. It docs not imply that "the citizen in the Free States can 



always lawfulhj enter into this relation" {i. e., the relation of a 
slaveholder), "when he removes into a State where the laws do 
sanction slavery ;" if by " Imvfulhj" you mean without sin ! 

The case, as stated by yourself, is a case concerning, not sin as 
attaching to an institution, but sin as attaching to the conduct of 
the individual man ; a case which is fully discussed by Paul, in the 
14th chapter of Romans. If there be "tens of thousands of Chris- 
tians in the Free States, who could not enter voluntarily into this 
relation without involving their conscience in sin," then I say with 
Paul — "To him that esteemeth anything to be unclean, to him it 
is unclean," but "why is my liberty judged of another man's con- 
science?" 

3. It does not imply '■'■the permanence of slavery, as an ordi- 
nance of Crod, on a level with marriage or civil government ." 

The reasoning which would educe such a conclusion from the 
deliverances of the word of God, on the subject of slavery, or 
from the "form of expression" for the Christian Doctrine of Sla- 
very, for which I am contending, involves the same fallacy, with 
that which educes the doctrines of "passive obedience," and the 
" divine right of kings," from the Scripture deliverances on the 
subject of civil government. 

The duty of obedience to " the powers that be," whether in the 
state or on the plantation, is a Christian duty, and is therefore en- 
joined in the word of God. The " doctrine of revolution," in the 
one case, and the " doctrine of emancipation," in the other, are not 
religious, but political doctrines, and therefore they are not taught 
us in the word of God. Of this, also, I shall have occasion to 
speak more fully in my next letter, and I therefore dismiss it for 
the present. 

4. Nor does my statement imply that a man may, ivithout sin, 
hold slaves tvhere the laivs of the State prohibit it. 

The State is the proper authority to determine the question of 
the permission or prohibition of slavery within its own territory. 
And for a citizen to attempt to hold slaves, where the State pro- 
hibits slavery, is for him to " resist" the powers that be, in the 
sense of Rom. 13 : 2 ; and of such, Paul says, " They shall receive 
to themselves damnation." 

Such are a few of the points, in which you have charged upon 
me opinions which I do not hold, and, upon my statement, conse- 
quences which I do not admit. And I make this distinct disclaimer, 
that if, in any future communication, you should see fit to renew 
these charges, it may rest upon you to show that their consequences 
are fairly involved in that statement. 

Yours, truly, 

Geo. D. Armstrong. 



DR. ARMSTRONG'S SECOND REJOINDER. 

EMANCIPATION AND THE CHURCH. 

To THE Rev. C. Van Rensselaer, D.D. : 

If I correctly apprehend the position you assume on the subject 
of "Emancipation and the Church," in your second letter, we 
agree iu the main, whilst on secondary points only we differ. 

SECTION I. — agreement AND DIFFERENCE. 

What you assert for the Church is simply the right to utter 
opinions, or give advisory testimonies in favour of Emancipation; 
but not to make deliverances which shall bind the conscience, or 
in any way affect the standing of those who hold and act upon 
opinions different from those which she expresses. It was against 
the right of the Church to make the authoritative deliverances of 
the latter kind, that the argument of my second letter was mainly / 
directed : and had I understood your position at first, as I do now, 
I should probably never have written that letter. 

In so far, then, as authoritative deliverances are concerned, we 
agree. 

The point on which we differ, is the right of the Church to utter 
opinions, or give advisory testimony in favour of emancipation. 

You write — "Slavery has both moral and political aspects." 
" Our Church has always avoided interference with the State, in 
matters that are outside of her own appropriate work. She has 
not claimed authority over the political relations of slavery, nor 
attempted to extend her domain over subjects not plainly within 
her own province. It is only where slavery comes within the line 
of ecclesiastical jurisdiction ; that is to say, in its moral and reli- 
gious aspects, that our Church has maintained her right to deliver 
her testimony in such form, and at such times, as seemed best. 
She has ' rendered unto Cocsar the things that are Caesar's, and 
unto God the things that are God's.' Let no one attempt to de- 
spoil her of this joy." 

Here again, if I understand you, is a second point on which ive 
agree, viz. : If the question of emancipation be properly a political 
question, the Church has no "right to deliver her testimony" re- 
specting it, being estopped by God's law, which requires her to 
" render unto C«)sar the things that are Ci^sar's." 

We differ as to the category — religious or political — to which 
the question of emancipation belongs. 

G 



82 



. SECTION II. — IS THE QUESTION OP EMANCIPATION PROPERLY A 
POLITICAL QUESTION ? 

In my fourth letter, as well as in my " Christian Doctrine of 
Slavery," pp. 129, 130, I have endeavoured to draw the distinc- 
tion between the "political" and "scriptural or Christian," in the 
doctrine of slavery ; and if the positions there assumed are sound 
ones, then emancipation falls into the category of political ques- 
tions, unless you can show either (1), That it is a question Avhich 
"immediately concerns the interests of the life to come," and is 
not a question respecting "civil rights and political franchises;" 
or (2), That the word of God, when fairly interpreted, does contain 
a clear deliverance on the subject. 

First. For proof that the Bible " treats the distinctions which 
slavery creates as matters of very little importance, in so far as 
the interests of the Christian life are concerned," and, conse- 
quently, the question of emancipation as not one which "imme- 
diately concerns the interests of the life to come," I refer you to 
"Christian Doctrine of Slavery," pp. 65-74. 

In proof that the teaching of the Bible here corresponds with 
the experience of the Church, I refer you to the two incontroverti- 
ble facts — (1), That a larger proportion of the labouring classes 
belong to the Christian Church in the Southern States, where the 
labourers are mostly slaves, than in the Northern, where slavery 
does not exist ; and (2), The number of coloured church members, 
in the evangelical churches in our Southern States, is nearly dou- 
ble that of all the evangelical churches gathered from among the 
heathen throughout the world. " In 1855 heathen church member- 
ship is set down at one hundred and eighty thousand. The present 
estimate of coloured church members in the Methodist Church 
South, is one hundred and seventy-five thousand. Eight or ten 
years ago the Baptist coloured membership at the South was re- 
corded as only four thousand less than the Methodist. When to 
these two numbers, you add all the coloured members of other 
unincluded organizations of Methodists and Baptists, also of Epis- 
copalians, Lutherans, and Presbyterians, you readily reach an 
aggregate of coloured church membership near twice as large as 
the strictly heathen orthodox church membership of the world." 
(Stiles's Modern Reform, p. 277.) 

/Second. Does the word of God, when fairly interpreted, contain 
a clear deliverance on this subject? 

You find such a deliverance in 1 Cor. 7 : 20, 21. "Let every 
man abide in the same calling wherein he was called. Art thou 
called being a servant? care not for it; but if thou mayest be 
made free, use it rather^'' — and you write, " Use your freedom, 
rather," says Paul, expounding the nature of slavery, and throw- 
ing the light of inspiration upon its anomalous character. When 
did the Apostle ever exhort husbands and wives not to care for 



83 

the marriage tie, and to seek to be freed from it, if the opportunity 
offered ? 

As I read this comment of yours, I could not but ask myself: 
Can my good brother Van Rensselaer have carefully studied this 
7th chapter of 1 Cor. ? Put the questions fairly, not — "when did 
the Apostle ever exhort husbands and wives not to care for the 
marriage tie, and to seek to be free from it if the opportunity 
offered," for the marriage tie, unlike that of slavery, cannot be 
dissolved by consent of parties ; but " when did the Apostle ever 
exhort the unmarried not to care for the marriage tie, but being 
free from it, to retain their freedom." And I answer, in this very 
chapter. " I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good 
for them that they abide even as I. Art thou loosed from a wife, 
seek not a wife. So then he that giveth her in marriage doeth 
well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doth better." Verses 
8, 27, SB. 

And this brings out my objection to the interpretation which you 
would put upon verse 21. Throughout the chapter, in answer to 
inquiries from the church at Corinth, Paul is giving instruction 
with especial regard to the circumstances in which they were placed 
at the time, and hence every special item of advice must be interpreted 
with this fact in view. Disregard this, in interpreting either the 
preceding portions of the chapter, or the parts which follow the 
passage under examination, and I see not how you can avoid the 
admission of doctrines clearly at variance with the teachings of 
other portions of the word of God ; the Romish doctrine of the 
superior sanctity of a life of celibacy, for example. 

Tried in either of these ways, then, emancipation falls into the 
category of political, and not that of religious questions. Nor will 
it avail to take it out of this category to show, — 

1. That the Ohurch has often made delweratices on this subject 
in years that are passed. From the close of the third until near 
the beginning of the present century a union of Church and State 
has existed throughout Christendom. In our country, for the first 
time since the days of Constantino, has the Church assumed that 
position of freedom which was her glory in apostolic days. It 
would be strange indeed if, in such circumstances, she has never 
transcended the limits which her great Head has prescribed ; it 
would be more than could reasonably be expected, that she had yet 
fully comprehended her true position. Political preaching, and 
political church-deliverances, instead of being the novelty which 
some imagine them, date their origin as far back as the days when 
this union of Church and State was formed. 

You quote the paper adopted by the Assembly in 1818 as con- 
taining such a deliverance respecting emancipation as you contend 
for ; and you call my attention to the fact that my old instructor, 
Dr. George A. Baxter, ^'- clarum et venerahile nomen^" was one of 
the committee of three by whom that paper was prepared. I know 



84 

and admit all that you say about that paper. And I know also, 
that eighteen years afterwards, when Dr. Baxter was an older — and 
may I not add — a wiser man, he entertained and published very 
different views, as you will see by referring to his "Essay on the 
Abolition of Slavery," especially pp. 4 and 7. You quote, also, the 
paper adopted by the Synod of Virginia in 1800, and express the 
opinion that our Synod are ready to reaffirm this testimony in 1858. 
That you are mistaken here, you can easily satisfy yourself by read- 
ing the paper on slavery adopted in 1837, and the remarks made 
by the Virginia delegation in the convention which immediately 
preceded the separation of the Old from the New School, as re- 
ported in the second volume of Foote's Sketches of Virginia. You 
will there see that the ground assumed is precisely that which I 
occupy. 

2. Nor will it avail to show that emancipation lias a hearing 
upon the ivell-heing of a ijeople — even their spiritual well-heing. 
Human advancement in every particular — the extension of com- 
merce, the opening up of the country by railroads, improvements 
in agriculture and the mechanic arts — affects the spiritual well-being 
of man more or less directly. How could we, for instance, carry 
on the missionary operations of this nineteenth century but for the 
improvements of the nineteenth century ? It is a mark of the 
heavenly origin of Christianity that she thus subsidizes every 
agency for God's service. And this, I believe, will be more and 
more the case as " the end" draweth nigh. But this by no means 
authorizes the Church to turn aside from her appropriate work, that 
she may supervise these agencies. In the days of her greatest 
glory, a prophet tells us that " there shall be upon the bells of the 
horses, holiness unto the Lord" (Zech. 14 : 20) ; but surely, he does 
not mean to teach us that in that day the Church of God will go 
into the business of bell-founding. 

SECTION III. — MY POSITION. 

Do not misapprehend the position I have assumed respecting 
this subject of Emancipation. It is not, that the word of God 
teaches that slavery is to be " a permanent institution, on a level 
with marriage and the parental relation," but that it treats the 
question of emancipation from slavery, just as it treats the analo- 
gous question of deliverance from despotic civil rule, as a political, 
and not a religious question, and hence, makes no deliverance on 
the subject. And further, that the Church is bound to treat them 
both alike, just as her Head has treated them in the instructions 
he has given her. And let me add, if you would convince the 
many "of like faith" with me on this point, you will have to show 
either (1.) That we place the question of emancipation in the wrong 
category; or (2.) That the Church has a right to meddle with 
politics. 



85 



SECTION IV. — A SECOND QUESTION.* 

Thus far, I have discussed this subject of slavery, with the espe- 
cial purpose of determining, if possible, the proper limits of eccle- 
siastical action. Let us look at it now from a diiferent point of 
view, for the purpose of determining what our duty is, as citizens and 
Christian men, in a country where every citizen has a right to par- 
ticipation in the civil government. 

To the general proposition, that all men are bound to seek the 
well-being, temporal and eternal, of their fellow-men, no one who 
receives the Bible as the word of God can possibly object. The 
injunctions, " Thou shaltlove thy neighbour as thyself," and " All 
"things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even 
so to them," in their true scope and plain import, place this duty 
beyond all question. 

How^ then, can toe best promote the well-being, temporal and 
eternal, of the slave race which in God's jyrovidenee is among us ? 

SECTION V. — POPULAR ERRORS. 

Before attempting to answer this second question directly, let 
me turn your attention, briefly, to certain popular errors which, if 
I mistake not, lie at the foundation of the false reasoning current 
respecting the slave race in our country. 

I. It is a mistake to suppose that the slaves among lis have any 
intelligent desire for freedom. 

Could you go from man to man among them, and ask of each 
the question — Do you desire to be free? — from very many, and 
these the best and most thoughtful of them, you would receive a 
decided answer in the negative; and I speak what I know when I 
say this. From others you would receive a diiferent answer. But 
sit down, now, and question them, for the purpose of ascertaining 
what is the idea they attach to the word freedom, and in ninety- , 
nine cases out of a hundred you will find that the only idea of free- 
dom they have is the idea of exemption from labour. But is ex- 
emption from labour freedom ? Or, can any one confer such free- 
dom as this upon man, until the work of human redemption is 
complete, and the Son of God has rolled back the curse laid upon 
"man sinning" in the sentence, " In the sweat of thy face shalt 
thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground ; for out of it wast 
thou taken : for dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return ?" 

In confirmation of the above statement, let me call your atten- 

* All this discussion about plans of emancipation appeared to the Editor new mat- 
ter, foreign to the question of" Emancipation and the Chnrcli," and to the nature of a 
rejoinder. The Editor suggested to Br. Armstrong the propriety of publishing it as a 
separate article, a sort of appendix to the series. But Dr. Armstrong having objected 
to this, courtesy to him required the pid>lication of Iiis letter, just as he wrote it. In 
the Reply to this second Rejoinder, the Editor will feel at liberty, either not to notice 
this new matter at all, or notice it now or hereafter, according to circumstances. — Ed. 



86 

tion to the two facts, apparently contradictory, which it alone ex- 
plains. (1.) That our slaves are the most contented, cheerful class 
of labourers on the face of the earth, and (2.) That the fugitive 
slaves in the Northern States and Canada are the most idle and 
worthless class in the communities to which they have gone. 

II. A second error respects the rights of the slave race in our 
country. 

1. Whatever may be affirmed respecting human rights in the ab- 
stract, practically, no man has a right to that which he is incapable 
of using with benefit to himself and safety to society. Or, apply- 
ing this general principle to the case before us — in the words of 
Dr. Hodge, as quoted by you in your first Letter — " the right to 
'personal liberty is conditio7ied by the ability to exercise beneficially * 
that right.'' If then the slave race among us do not possess the 
ability " to exercise beneficially the rights" of freemen — and I 
know that you will agree with me that such is the fact at the pre- 
sent time — it follows that their present slavery involves no viola- 
tion of any right of theirs to freedom, for they have no such right. 
Do not say this reasoning involves the perpetuity of slavery. The 
right to personal freedom, and the right to such improvement as 
may ultimately fit them for freedom, are entirely dift'erent things ; 
and with perfect consistency, I deny the one, whilst I fully admit 
the other ; and before I close this letter, I will show you just how 

I think their claim under the last-mentioned right is to be met and 
satisfied. 

2. " The right to labour' — in the true sense of that much-abused 
expression — that is, the right of every one willing and able to earn 
a living, to have that living, is a common right, belonging to every 
man, and a right which cannot be forfeited, excepting by such 
crime as forfeits life itself. So reason teaches ; — so teaches the 
word of God, — " And God said. Behold, I have given you" — i. e. 
Adam, our common parent — "every herb bearing seed, wdiich is 
upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the 
fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat" (Gen. 
1 : 29, compare with 9 : 3). And every state of society which fails 
to secure this right, is vicious in so far as it fails. And every civil 
government which does not protect this right of the weak and poor, 
against the rich and powerful, is faulty in so far as it does not pro- 
tect it. This right is one of the most precious temporal rights 
which the poor man has, for on this his comfort and his very life 
depend. 

This right is secured under the system of slavery which exists 
in our country to a poor, degraded race of labourers, not only bet- 
ter than it could be secured to the same race under a system of 
free labour, but better than it is secured to a more elevated race of 
labourers in Europe, under any of the systems which prevail among 
the civilized nations of the Old World. In this most important 
particular, a system of slavery, instead of interfering with man's 
right, secures it. 



87 

III. It is an error to attribute the suffering, and vice, and crime, 
apparent among our slaves, to their slavery. 

Official returns show that the suffering, and vice, and crime, ap- 
parent among the portion of the African race in slavery in our 
country, are far less than will be found among the portion of their 
race in freedom. As well might we attribute the suffering and 
crime among the manufacturing population in England — and if we 
may believe the sworn testimony taken before commissions of Par- 
liament, the amount of suffering, at the least, is greater there than 
here — to manufactures ; or the suffering and crime of the degraded 
portion of the white population in the Northern States to their 
freedom, as that among our slaves to their slavery. 
• The truth with respect to this matter is — as both observation and 
the word of God teach us — that suffering, and vice, and crime are 
the proper fruits of human degradation, and this degradation is a 
consequence of sin. Where, for a series of generations, a people 
have been sinking under the degrading influence of sin, no form of 
government, civil or social, can sever that connection which God 
has established between sin and degradation, on the one hand, and 
sin and suffering on the other. In the case of a degraded race 
situated as the African race in our country is, in so far as slavery 
exerts any influence, it is to diminish the amount of suffering, and 
vice, and crime among them, and not to increase it. 

IV. A fourth error is in attributing the degradation of our 
slaves to their slavery. 

That this degradation did not originate with slavery is placed 
beyond all question, by comparing our slaves with their country- 
men in Africa, who have never left their native shores. 

That it has not perpetuated this degradation, will be rendered 
equally evident by comparing the slaves among us now, with the 
same race when brought to this country, I doubt whether his- 
tory furnishes us with an instance in which a deeply degraded 
race have made more rapid progress, upward and onward, than 
has been made by this race since their introduction among us. 

The general reasoning we often hear on this subject is falla- 
cious, if I mistake not, because it takes no account of the grand 
obstacle to the elevation of a degraded people ; and that grand 
obstacle is idleness. If history teaches anything clearly, it is that 
you can never elevate a people in the scale of civilization, unless 
you can bring them to labour. From -what I have seen of the 
African race in our country, I fully concur with Dr. Baxter in the 
opinion, " If the Southern slaves were emancipated in a body, 
and placed in a community by themselves, from th-eir unwilling- 
ness to labour, they would sink into a savage state, and live by 
the chase, or the spontaneous productions of the earth, or else 
they would establish new forms of slavery among themselves." 
(Essay on Abolition of Slavery, p. 7.) 

To a people such as the slave race in our country, the effect of 



88 

slavery is elevating and not degrading. History points us to but 
one way — in so far as civil and political agencies are concerned — 
in which a deeply degraded race has ever yet been fitted for free- 
dom ; and that is, through the operation of a system of slavery, 
gradually ameliorating as the people were prepared for its ame- 
lioration. In this way our Anglo-Saxon race, once deemed by 
Cicero unfit even for slaves, but now in the van of civilization, 
worked their way up to freedom. 

SECTION VI. — EMANCIPATION LAWS. 

In approaching this subject of emancipation, there are certain 
points on which, I doubt not, we agree ; and it may be well to 
note them distinctly at the outset. They are, (1.) Present eman- 
cipation would be a curse and not a blessing to our slaves ; and 
(2.) Emancipation, with the prospect of the emancipated slaves 
remaining in this country, is neither practicable nor desirable, 
unless the slave race could be greatly elevated above their present 
position before obtaining their freedom. 

The plan of emancipation which you would favour is substan- 
tially that adopted by the Northern States, near the beginning of 
the present century, with the addition of a provision for the re- 
moval to Africa of the emancipated slaves. 

This plan embraces three particulars, viz. : 

1. A law prospective in its operation — say that all slaves born 
after a certain year shall become free at the age of twenty-five. 

2. Provision for the instruction of those to be emancipated in 
the rudiments of learning. 

3. Provision for their transfer and comfortable settlement in 
Africa when they become free. 

To all such plans as this I have several objections, for which I 
will ask a candid and careful examination. 

Objection 1st. I believe that any such law would, in its practical 
working, prove, to a very large extent, a transportation and not 
an emancipation law. 

Such was the fact with respect to the laws adopted in the New 
England and Northern States. In his " Modern Reform Exa- 
mined" (p. 31), Dr. Stiles makes the statement: "When emancipa- 
tion laws forbade the prolongation of slavery at the North, there 
are living witnesses who saw the crowds of negroes assembled 
along the shores of New England and the Middle States, to be 
shipped to latitudes where their bondage could be perpetuated ; 
and their posterity toil to-day in the fields of the Southern 
planter." In confirmation of this statement of Dr. Stiles, I can 
show you in Virginia, some fifty of the descendants of these very 
transported slaves, proved to be such by the records of our courts : 
and I will add, it was the bringing out of this fact, in the course 
of a trial upon which I attended, about fifteen years ago, that first 
distinctly turned my attention to this matter. 



89 

When a few years ago it was proposed to make Missouri a free 
State by the operation of such a law, so strongly did this same 
tendency manifest itself, that the friends of a proper emancipa- 
tion — Dr. N. L. Rice among the number — were obliged to lift 
their voice against it, declaring that it would be better to have no 
emancipation at all than such an one as this. In truth, the New 
England and Northern States, although they had but a small 
number of slaves at the time they became "free States," never 
did emancipate a large part of that number. Their so-called 
emancipation laws were, to a large extent, practically transporta- \/ 
tion laws ; and the transportation of slaves by accumulating them 
on a smaller area, is detrimental, and not beneficial to the slaves 
themselves. 

I call your attention to this fact, not to reproach the North — 
for it is not by crimination and recrimination the cause of truth is 
to be promoted — but to show you, in the light of history, what 
the practical working of these "prospective emancipation acts" is 
likely to be. 

Objection 2d. But supposing the objection just stated could be 
obviated in some way — by the modern " compensation" scheme, 
for example — I object to the plan, on the ground that you cannot 
prepare the slave race among us for freedom by any short course ^ 
of education, such as that proposed. Often, when a child, did I 
hear repeated the proverb, " there is no royal road to learning." 
And so may we say of a degraded race in slavery, " there is no 
royal road to freedom." 

Let me give you the result of an experiment of my own on this 
point. Some eighteen years ago, I had living in my family a young * 
slave woman, who seemed anxious to become free and to go to 
Liberia. She was a person of good character, and had been re- 
cently married to a man also of good character, who seemed like- 
minded with herself. After consulting with her husband's master, 
a personal friend of mine, and ascertaining that he was willing to 
adopt a similar course with him, I advanced the money for her 
purchase, with the understanding that she was to remain in my 
service until it was repaid. In the way proposed, the two became 
free when from 32 to 35 years of age. In the meantime, they 
were taught to read, and in other ways the effort was made to fit 
them for freedom. The result of all this has been that, instead of 
sending two good colonists to Liberia, my friend and I have added 
two to the number of free negroes in Virginia. 

Were this a solitary case, I might think it an exceptional one. 
But after I began to get my eyes open to the probable result in 
this case, I was led to inquire into the result in other cases of like ^ 
nature. And I can give you case upon case, with names and dates, 
where similar experiments have resulted in the same way. 

But, perhaps, some may say they ought to have been compelled, 
for their own good, to go to Liberia. To all such suggestions as 



90 

this, ray reply is, (1.) It is vain to expect to make good citizens 
for Liberia by sending them there against their will, like convicts 
to a penal colony. (2.) We deceive ourselves when we speak of 
Africa as "their native country," "their home." Africa is no 
more a "native country," "a home," to our slaves, in their own 
apprehension, than the North of Ireland is my country, or Holland 
is yours, (o.) Emancipation laws which compel expatriation are 
cruel in their practical operation, since they involve the sundering 
of ties both of kindred and affection, — and thus revive, under an- 
other name, one of the harshest features of slavery, a feature which 
has now, practically, almost disappeared from the slavery existing 
in our country. 

Objection 3t?. I have yet a third objection to the plan of eman- 
cipation we are considering, and it is that I see not the least pros- 
pect of Liberia being able to do the part assigned it in this plan 
for a long time to come — certainly not while you and I, my good 
brother, have a part in what is done under the sun — if the work 
of colonization is to be carried on with due regard to the safety of 
the colony, or a proper attention to the wants and claims upon us 
of the African race in our country. 

In order that you may understand my objection, let me set be- 
fore you certain thoughts and opinions on the subject of Liberia 
Colonization, and let me ask for them a candid consideration. 

SECTION VII. — CAPACITY OF LIBERIA FOR IMMIGRATION. 

In all our calculations about Liberia, we must remember that 
she is yet an infant colony, and that the greatest danger which 
does now or has yet threatened her, is from the too rapid immi- 
gration of such colonists as we are able to send her. 

On this point, Rev. J. Leighton Wilson — eighteen years a mis- 
sionary in Africa — writes : " The directors of the colonization en- 
terprise, we think, have erred in directing their efforts too exclu- 
sively to the one object of transporting emigrants to Liberia. 
Many regard the number actually sent out as the true, if not the 
only test of the prosperity of the enterprise. But this is a serious 
mistake, and if adhered to much longer may 'prove the ruin of the 
cause. It requires something more than mere numbers to consti- 
tute a thrifty and flourishing commonwealth. On the other hand, 
an undue accumulation of idleness, improvidence, and vice, such as 
would be likely to accrue from thrusting large numbers of these 
people indiscriminately into the bosom of this infant republic, would 
certainly result in its entire overthrow." (Western Africa, p. 410.) 

Rev. D. A. Wilson — principal of the Alexander High School in 
Liberia — in the October Number of the Presbyterian Magazine, 
writes : " A mere passage across the Atlantic works no transfor- 
mation of character. Would that Colonizationists would think of 
this, and regulate their actions accordingly. Would that masters 



91 

in emancipating tlieir slaves would remember it, and learn that 
their first duty is, not to emancipate them, but to prepare them for 
freedom. Indiscriminate immigration has been a great curse to 
Liberia." 

That we may form some idea — upon reliable data — of wdiat a re- 
public can do in the way of assimilating an immigrant population, 
let us call to mind the experience of our own country. We number 
not far from thirty million of the best portion of the human race. 
Our average immigration is not far from a quarter of a million 
annually; and these immigrants are certainly as far advanced in 
all that fits them for becoming good citizens as any we can hope to 
send to Africa for a long time to come. And yet, this nation is 
tasked to the utmost to assimilate this immigration, and no thought- 
ful patriot would be willing to see it greatly increased at the pre- 
sent time. 

SECTION VIII. TRUE FIELD OF OPERATION FOR COLONIZATION. 

The Colonization Society was formed, and the colony of Liberia 
founded, not to operate as an adjunct to a general emancipation, 
but with a very different object. 

The second article of the constitution of the American Coloni- 
zation Society declares, " The object to which its attention is to 
be exclusively directed, is to promote and execute a plan for colo- 
nizing, with their own consent, the free people of colour residing 
in our country, in Africa, or such other place as Congress shall 
deem expedient." 

In order to a fair understanding of the case, let me ask your 
attention to the following points. 

I. The African race in America consists of two distinct classes, 
viz. : the free people of colour, and slaves. The number of the first- 
mentioned class is now not far from half a million, of whom rather 
more than one-half are resident in the slave States ; the remainder 
in the free States. 

II. In so far as any claim upon us is concerned — either on the 
ground of our common humanity, or any wrong done to their 
fathers by our fathers in their original transfer to this country — 
the two classes stand upon precisely the same footing. Neither 
class can claim precedence of the other. 

III. The present condition of the free people of colour, in this 
country, is worse than that of our slaves; and their condition in 
the free States is worse than in the slave States. For proof of 
this I refer you to the statistics of "pauperism" and "crime" in 
the census returns for 1850. 

IV. The portion of the race in slavery are rapidly multiplying, 
and gradually rising in all that constitutes civilization, in the best 
sense of that word ; whilst the portion of the race in freedom in 
the free States, like the poor Indians, arc fading, and must ere 



92 

long perish, unless something more can be done for them than has 
yet been done. 

V. The portion of the race in freedom furnishes the best and 
^ most hopeful subjects for Liberian colonization. The representa- 
tions given by some — not pro-slavery men — of this class as *' a 
debased and degraded set" — "more addicted to crime, and vice, 
and dissolute manners than any portion of the people" — " a pes- 
tiferous class, whose increase in Ohio vrould be the increase of 
crime, misery, and want, to a fearful extent," whilst true of them 
as a class, as the census returns proved beyond all question, yet 
fails to make a distinction which truth requires at our hands. 
Among this degraded class there is to be found a number, say one 
in ten, of the most intelligent and best prepared for successful 
'< colonization, of all the African race in our country. " Many of 
them have been emancipated either for merit in themselves or 
their ancestors" (Governor Wise); and the deteriorating effects of 
freedom, in contact with the white man, must have been rapid, 
indeed, if this be not the case. 

To these, my observation would teach me, that we ought to add, 
say one more in every ten, who are as well prepared for coloniza- 
tion as those who would be sent to Africa under the operation of 
such schemes of emancipation as that we are considering. 

Thus it appears that one-fifth, or one hundred thousand of the 
free coloured people of our country, are as well or better prepared 
for colonization, on the coast of Africa, than the portion of the 
African race now in slavery. 

Bring together, now, these facts. These two classes, the free 
coloured people and the slaves, have an equal claim upon us, in so 
far as our common humanity or wrong done to their fathers is 
concerned. The present condition of the one is worse than that 
of the other. The one, unless it can be saved by colonization, or 
some other such instrumentality, must ere long perish, whilst the 
other is multiplying and improving ; and this portion, more mise- 
rable at the present time and in prospect, yet will furnish a large 
body of colonists, better fitted for successful colonization than 
those which will be procured from the other portion. And does 
not every principle of a wise, Christian philanthropy require us 
to adhere to the course marked out by the founders of the Colo- 
nization Society, and attend first to the free people of colour, and 
only after our work here has been done, to think of resorting to 
colonization as an adjunct to emancipation? 

SECTION IX. — WHAT THE COLONIZATION SOCIETY HAS DONE. 

At the close of my second letter, in a quotation from Bishop 
Hopkins, a small portion of those now in slavery are pointed out 
as proper subjects for colonization in Africa. These would become 
free in the natural course of things, and in all such calculations 
ought to be counted with free persons of colour. 



93 

It is from this class, I believe, most of the colonists, hitherto 
sent to Liberia, have been obtained. Of the five hundred and 
eighty-seven persons carried by the Mary C. Stevens, sixty-three 
only were born free. (See Forty-first Annual Report of Coloniza- 
tion Society, pp. 13, 14.) As yet, then, the Colonization Society 
has hardly touched the large class of free coloured persons in our 
country. 

The Colonization Society was formed in 1817, but not until 
182-1: can the colony of Liberia be considered as fairly established. 
Since then thirty-four years have elapsed, and the colony now 
numbers about ten thousand, of whom but a part, say three thou- 
sand, are from the class of free coloured persons in our country. 

SECTION X. — WHAT LIBERIAN COLONIZATION MAY REASONABLY 
BE EXPECTED TO DO. 

1. I have already directed your attention to the grand obstacle 
to rapid immigration, in so far as Liberia is concerned, viz. : the 
difiiculty in assimilating such an immigration as we are able to 
send her. 

On the subject of " Christian appliances," as you term them, in 
their relation to the rate of immigration, listen to Rev. J. Leighton 
Wilson : "Another thing against which it behooves these mission- 
ary societies to be guarded, is that of doing too much for the 
Liberians, in the way of providing gratuitous education and preach- 
ing. We regard it as one of the chief failings of the Liberians, 
and one of the most serious hindrances to their improvement, that 
they are too Avilling to be taken care of. They have no self-sup- 
porting schools ; very little has been done to support the Gospel 
among themselves; and there is a disposition to look to the mis- 
sionary societies to do everything of the kind for them, and the 
sooner they are taught to depend upon themselves the better." 
(Western Africa, p. 410.) 

2. The grand obstacle to a rapid emigration, on the part of the 
free people of colour in our country, is their deep-rooted distrust 
of the capacity of their own people for safely conducting the 
aifairs of government. This obstacle is well set forth in the lan- 
guage of a young free coloured man I had in my employ for four 
years, endeavouring to fit and persuade him to go to Liberia, when 
be put an end to the matter by saying, " I know more of negroes 
than you do, and I had rather live among white folks." 

Both of these obstacles are of such a nature as to require time 
to overcome them, and to teach us the absolute necessity of great 
prudence in the management of African colonization. 

If now it has taken us thirty-four years to place a colony of ten 
thousand, about three thousand of whom are from the class of 
"free persons of colour," on the coast of Africa, when can we 
reasonably calculate that our work will be done with the one hun- 



\y 



94 

dred thousand who remain, and who, upon every ground of sound 
policy as well as humanity, claim precedence of the portion of 
their race in slavery ? 

"Across that bridge of boats," said a certain eloquent speaker, 
referring to the line of steamships which it was proposed that the 
General Government should establish between this country and 
Liberia, " there will go, with a tramp like an army with banners, 
a mighty crowd, whose exodus will be more glorious than the 
exodus of Israel." Well, it would be an easy matter for our peo- 
ple to build this "bridge of boats." It would be, comparatively, 
an easy matter to start the "mighty crowd," amid the waving of 
banners and great rejoicing ; but what is to become of them at the 
other end of the bridge ? I confess, there is no vision rises before 
my eyes but that which Dr. Baxter saw, the vision of this " mighty 
crowd," through "unwillingness to labour, sinking into the savage 
state, and living by the chase, or the spontaneous productions of 
the earth, or else establishing new forms of slavery among them- 
selves." 

And can I, as a God-fearing man, favour any scheme involving 
such a catastrophe as this ? I may be mistaken in my opinions 
respecting this matter, but they are opinions honestly entertained, 
and not hastily adopted. I am a friend to Liberian colonization. 
I have confidence in its accomplishment of great good if prudently 
conducted ; and it is because I am a friend, that I deprecate any 
such measures as are contemplated in the popular emancipation 
schemes. 

SECTION XI. — THE "WORK AND THE WAY. 

Is there nothing we can do, and do now, for the slave race 
among us ? 

I reply, yes ; there is much that can be done ; work at which 
we may labour now, work for the Church, work for the Christian 
citizen, work for the philanthropist, and all of it work which will 
tell upon the slave race, and their preparation for ultimate free- 
dom, if freedom be what God in his providence has in store for 
them. 

As I read the lesson which history teaches — and in revelation I 
find no deliverance on the subject — there is but one way in which 
a people, in whose case the process of degradation by sin has been 
going on through many generations, and upon whom, in conse- 
quence thereof, slavery has come, can be raised and fitted for free- 
dom again, and that one way is through the agency of a gradually 
ameliorating slavery, the amelioration taking place as they are 
prepared to profit by it. Individiud exceptions will occur, as 
stated at the close of my second letter, but for a race, history 
points to no other way. In this way our Anglo-Saxon race, once 
sunk under a more galling slavery than the African has ever suf- 
fered in our country, was prepared for freedom. 



95 

This process of amelioration is going on, and lias been going on 
ever since the introduction of new bodies of slaves, through the 
agency of the slave-trade, ceased. Many of the cruel laws, once 
necessar}; to restrain a barbarous people, have disappeared from 
our statute-books, whilst the others have become, to a very large 
extent, a dead letter, and, in the natural order of things, will dis- 
appear. 

For all such amelioration, Christianity lays the only sure foun- 
dation. The Church of God, without departing from the letter of 
her instructions, without stepping aside at all from the course which 
Christ has marked out for her, must do a great work in preparing 
the way for any amelioration of slavery, safe and profitable for the 
slaves themselves ; and when the Church has once done her work, 
the Christian citizen and the philanthropist will do what remains 
to be done. 

But for unreasonably protracting this letter, I would present 
this matter more in detail. As it is, I must refer you for a fuller 
exhibition of the scheme to the "Christian Doctrine of Slavery," 
pp. 117-136. 

SECTION XII. — EFFECTS OF ENTERTAINING THIS EMANCIPATION 

SCHEME. 

As I have remarked, I have no confidence in the happy opera- 
tion of any general emancipation scheme; at least, for a long time 
to come; and the present agitation of the matter is doing harm, 
and has been doing harm for some years past, both North and 
South. As Dr. Hodge has well said, " The great duty of the South 
is not emancipation, but improvement;" and, if I mistake not, the 
present agitation of emancipation has been the principal means of 
turning aside attention from the present duty. 

At the South, it has, in so far as it has operated at all, diverted 
attention from our present duty, — the religious instruction and 
gradual elevation of the African race among us. Never, until we 
look the matter fully in the face, and come to understand that there 
is no short process by which we can be rid of our responsibility, 
will we be prepared to do all our duty in this behalf. 

At the North, it has turned aside the attention of Christian men 
from their own appropriate field of labour. You have some two 
hundred thousand of this African race in the free States, and tlieir 
present condition is worse than that of the portion of the race at 
the South, as the census statistics of "pauperism and crime" abun- 
dantly prove; and their future prospects are no better than their 
present condition. 

What are you doing for them ? Ameliorating your laws ? Not 
that I hear of. Colonizing them in Africa? Once in a great 
while I hear of a small band leaving the Northern States for Libe- 
ria ; but the great mass of colonists are from the Southern States. 



96 

Are you trying to educate them for better things? Here I rejoice 
that I can answer — at least for our Church — in a different tone. 
You have founded the Ashmun Institute. And that God's rich 
blessing may rest upon it, should be the prayer of every intelligent 
friend of Africa. But besides this, I hear of nothing that Chris- 
tian men at the North are doing in this way. And what is more, 
whilst at the South it is often a subject of anxious inquiry, in our 
Church councils and in the private circle, what can we do for this 
people who, in God's providence, are made dependent on us ? — I 
hear of no such inquiry at the North. Indeed, the only action I 
have heard of, for some years past, even by any of our conservative 
synods, is that of which you tell me in your second letter, — the re- 
affirming of "the testimony of 1818" by the Synod of Pittsburg 
and Ohio, which, to take the best view of it, is a telling one's neigh- 
bours what they ought to do, instead of asking what can I do in 
the field which God's providence has assigned to me? 

It is in no spirit of retaliation that I write this ; but that I may 
show you what the effect of a premature agitation of the Emanci- 
pation question has been. And could I reach my conservative 
brethren at the North, and "speak a word in their ear," I would 
say. Take care, lest you find occasion for the lamentation, " They 
made me keeper of the vineyards, but mine own vineyard have I 
not kept." 

SECTION XIII. — REMARKS ON DR. VAN RENSSELAER'S THIRD 

LETTER. 

1. Most of your third letter is based upon a misapprehension, 
for which I frankly acknowledge that I am to blame. When I 
wrote — " The correctness of this brief history of anti-slavery 
opinions," &c. — I thoughtlessly used the Avord anti-davery in a 
literal sense, but not the sense which it has in the current use of 
the day. By reading the extract from Bishop Hopkins's "Ameri- 
can Citizen," to which the sentence refers, you will see that I 
spoke of the opinion, " that the institution, in itself, involved a 
violation of religion and morality," the opinion which has given 
rise to " the assaults against the lawfulness of the institution." 
This is the peculiar type of anti-slavery opinion distinguished as 
abolitionism ; and abolition opinion is the expression I ought to 
have used. 

In addition to the proof already given of the correctness of the 
statement of Bishop Hopkins, in the paragraph referred to, viz., 
" If we go on from the days of the Apostles to examine the doc- 
trine and practice of the Christian Church, we find no other views 
entertained on the subject" — i. e., no other views than that " the 
institution, in itself, did not involve a violation of religion or mo- 
rality," let me call your attention to one fact. " Most of the Fa- 
thers" (Hodge), "The Fathers of the Church from the time of 



97 

Chrysostom" (Olshausen), interpreted the passage cliiefiy relied 
upon by you, viz., 1 Cor. 7 : 21, to mean : " Art thou called being 
a slave, care not for it ; but even if thou canst be free, prefer to 
remain as thou art," (See Hodge on 1 Cor., Olshausen's Commen- 
tary.) I do not cite this as a correct interpretation of the pas- 
sage, for I do not so receive it. I cite it simply to show you what 
the current sentiment of the ancient Church must have been when 
such an interpretation of this passage was commonly received. 

2. In your letter, in two instances, you strangely confound 
things that differ. (1.) To declare that certain opinions respect- 
ing human liberty have originated in an infidel theory of civil 
government, is one thing. To declare that those who hold such 
opinions are infidels, is a very different thing. (2.) You confound 
opposition to slaveholding, with opposition to the African slave- 
trade, including in itself, as the latter always has and always will, 
man-stealing; as if the lawfulness of the one implied the lawful- 
ness of the other. Surely, the distinction made, in the law of 
Moses, in the New Testament, and in the laws of our own country, 
between slaveholding and man-stealing, i. e., " kidnapping free 
persons to be sold as slaves," is a sound distinction, and one that 
has a good foundation in the nature of the two things. 

SECTION XIV. — CONCLUDING REMAKKS. 

1. In discussing, as I have, this " Second Question" (§ 4), I 
have been discussing a question which lies outside the proper 
range of the Church's action ; and I have done it, in part, to show 
you that such a limitation of the power of the Church, as I have 
contended for, does not imply the denial of any claim which the 
African race has upon us, either as men or as Christians. The 
key to my position is this : I see no good reason to believe that the 
African race in slavery among us will attain to that elevation re- 
quisite for a safe and profitable freedom, in any other way than 
that in which other races, once similarly situated, have risen. And 
if I cannot see distinctly a freedom for them in the future, it is for 
just the same reasons that I cannot see distinctly the future over- 
throw of despotic government throughout the earth. I know not 
how far this elevating process shall have proceeded ere this present 
dispensation shall close. "When shall the Son of Man come?" 
and " When the Son of Man cometh, shall he find faith on the 
earth?" And if I deprecate the raising of the question of eman- 
cipation now, it is on the same ground upon which I would adopt 
a similar course, were I a citizen of France, with respect to civil 
liberty, viz., it ^Yill do much present harm, and can do no possible 
present good. 

2. In my statement of the "Christian doctrine of slavery," and 
in insisting upon the political character of the question of emanci- 
pation, I am contending for no mere abstraction. My doctrine, in 

7 



its practical operation, will forever exclude the " slavery question" 
from our Church councils — where its introduction has done nothing 
but harm — and will exclude it in precisely the way in which Christ 
and his apostles excluded it in their day, and yet leave the Church 
all the work which Christ has assigned her ; and a glorious work 
it is, — a work which, well done, will confer upon the African race 
in our country benefits infinitely transcending all which the most 
perfect civil liberty on earth could confer. 

When first my attention was particularly directed to the lan- 
guage used in 1 Tim. 6 : 1-5 (the passage quoted in my first 
Letter), that language seemed to me unaccountably harsh, directed, 
as it is, against what I thought a very innocent form of error. But 
as years have rolled on, and the character of the error there con- 
demned has developed itself before my eyes, I have come to under- 
stand better why the Holy Ghost uses the language he does. 

Trace the history of Abolitionism for the last twenty-five years, 
and mark its doings. What that is " true, or honest, or pure, 
or lovely, or of good report," in State or Church, which it has 
touched and not defiled, — or gotten into its power and not de- 
stroyed ? 

It has made enemies of those once friends. It has broken up 
the communion of God's people. It has led even gray-haired 
ministers of the Gospel to revile their brethren of the same Church 
as " slave-driving hierarchs," for daring to stand up for God's 
truth as it was "delivered to the saints." 

It has entered the pulpit, and banishing the Gospel of Christ, 
has substituted for it the preaching of narrow-minded, bitter, sec- 
tional politics. It has entered our catholic associations for pur- 
poses of Christian benevolence, and now, the '"'' American' in the 
title of our "American Home Missionary Society," stands there, 
like the sculptured skull and cross-bones on some old tombstone, a 
memento of worth and piety departed. It has entered our church 
councils — and along with it have come strife and dissension. First, 
"railings, evil surmisings, and perverse disputings," have taken 
the place of Christian conference. And then, the ploughshare of 
division has been driven through "the heritage of God." 

" my soul, come not thou into their secret ; unto their as- 
sembly, mine honour, be not thou united." 

Yours, truly, 

Geo. D. Armstrong. 



99 



DR. VAN RENSSELAER'S FIRST REJOINDER. 

ON THE PROPER STATEMENT OF THE SCRIPTURAL DOCTRINE OF 

SLAVERY. 

To THE Rev. George D. Armstrong, D.D. 

An amicable discussion of slavery, instead of suggesting to you 
" the dark and bloody ground" of Kentucky, with its scenes of 
savage warfare, only required our presence on the field of scriptural 
truth. The appearance of brother Armstrong, with rifle in hand, 
is not a pleasant clerical sight, introduced by the law of association 
into the perspective ; nor is it a very terrible one, for I have dis- 
covered that, even with the aim of so good a marksman as himself, 
a rifle-shot is " not necessarily and in all circumstances" exact. 

Your allusion to "the shrieks for freedom" is the first political 
allusion made in our discussion, and this footprint upon the " dark 
and bloody ground," leading into a trail of the wilderness, I respect- 
fully decline to follow. 

Your remark that sections and divisions "secure perspicuity" 
and "guard against misapprehension," is a very good one. 

SECTION I. — DR. ARMSTRONG ADMITS THE TRUTH OP MY 
GENERAL PROPOSITION. 

The issue between us is whether my proposition that " slavehold- 
ing is not necessarily and in all circumstances sinful," is liable to 
just exception as an inexact, or inadequate, expression of the scrip- 
tural doctrine in the premises ; or whether your proposition that 
" slaveholding is not a sin in the sight of God" is more accurate 
and complete. The characteristic diflerence in the phraseology of 
the two propositions is that mine has a special reference to circum- 
stances^ whilst you deny the right to admit them. Your own inci- 
dental concessions decide that the introduction of circumstances is 
right and necessary. 

§ 1. You expressly declare, among the articles of your faith on 
this subject, that " slavery is expedient or inexpedient, right or 
wrong, according to circumstances.'' p. 68. I have substituted, 
as you permit, "slavery" for "civil despotism;" and here I find 
my own proposition written down as true by Dr. Armstrong, under 
" circumstances" quite remarkable in an objector, I am aware 
that you maintain that this doctrine is not deducible entirely from 

LcfC. 



100 

Scripture, but that it is partly deducible from reason, and includes 
a political view. This point I shall examine presently. All that 
I desire you to notice now, is that my proposition, irrespective of 
the mode of its proof, is really the true one, by your own admis- 
sion. 

§ 2. In your original Letter, you deny that "all slaveholding is 
sinless in the sight of God." Of course, some slaveholding is sin- 
ful ; and what but circumstances must determine its character ? 
You also explicitly declare that, " when we state the proposition, 
that slaveholding is not a sin in the sight of God, it can apply to 
such slaveholding only as subsists in conformity with the law of 
God." p. 11 and 12. Here again, do not circumstances decide 
whether it is justifiable or not ? 

§ 3. You, over and over, admit, in your last Letter, that slavery 
classes with adiaphora, or things indifferent. Civil despotism, or 
slavery, "belongs in morals to the adiaphora, or things indifferent:" 
p. 68, 69, 72. Now the characteristic, formal nature of such 
things is that they are not po' se, or necessarily and in all circum- 
stances, either right or wrong, but that they may be either right or 
wrong according to circumstances. 

With all these admissions in favour of my form of statement, 
made so clearly and palpably by yourself, it would be difficult to 
see what opening you leave for further assaults upon it, were it not 
for a distinction you set up between the scriptural and the whole 
view of the subject, which I shall proceed to examine. It is a great 
point gained, when Dr. Armstrong plainly concedes that the ivhole, 
or complete view of the subject demands the introduction of " cir- 
cumstances," which is the chief point in dispute between us. 

SECTION II. DR. ARMSTKONG ON POLITICS ; DISTINCTION 

BETWEEN SCRIPTURE AND REASON, ETC. 

The distinction you make between the scriptural and the politi- 
cal relations of the subject is one of the two significant points of 
your Rejoinder. 

§ 1. Whilst my proposition is admitted to be right, in view" of 
the combined testimony of Scripture and reason, you maintain that 
Scripture alone does not nuthorize it. Is not this, in effect, saying 
that the Bible is not a sufficient rule of faith and practice on the 
subject of slavery ? Mark ; we are not now discussing any of the 
questions of capital and labour, or any State plans of general eman- 
cipation. The question before us is one concerning our relations 
to God. It is the case, we will suppose, of a slaveholding member 
of your own church, whose conscience is agitated by the question 
of duty in regard to his slaves. Has he any other guidance for the 
general principles of his conduct, than his Bible ? Can he go to 
the laws of the State for peace of mind ? Or can his reason supply 
any light which has not its source in revelation ? Do you say that 



101 

this is not a question of morals ? I reply that you yourself admit 
that slavery " belongs in morals to the adiapliora." If so, it must 
be brought to the test of God's word, as interpreted by the best 
use of reason. On such a question as this, we cannot say, " this 
part of the doctrine comes from revelation, and that part from 
reason," or " slavery is right according to Scripture, but right or 
wrong according to politics." What we are aiming at is a general 
formula, embracing the moral principles by which slavery can be 
judged. And human reason, making its deductions from the gene- 
ral spirit, principles, and precepts of Scripture, deduces the ivhole 
doctrine, which has the authority of " Thus saith the Lord." Ac- 
cording to your view, reason is an independent source of authority, 
going beyond the word of God, on this practical moral question ; 
whilst I maintain that reason finds in the Word of God the moral 
elements for the determination of duty, and must gather up the 
results of scriptural declai'ations with all care, and with subjection 
to the Divine authority. The great error of the abolitionists con- 
sists in running wild with your doctrine, and they undertake to 
declare by " reason" even what the Scriptures ought to teach. 

§ 2. Your own declarations in regard to despotism and slavery, 
which we both place in the same category, show that the Scriptures 
actually cover the entire subject. You state, on p. 69, and also 
80, that "the doctrines of passive obedience," and of "the Divine 
right of kings," are not implied in the scriptural injunctions to 
obey the powers that be, and to submit to every ordinance of man 
for the Lord's sake. That is to say, you admit that passive obedi- 
ence is not a scriptural doctrine, or, in other words, that civil revo- 
lution is authorized, under certain circumstances, by the word of 
God. This is the doctrine our fathers taught and preached in the 
Revolutionary War, and which the Jacobites and non-juring divines 
in England resisted. This is true doctrine. And yet, on the same 
page, a few lines farther on, you inconsistently state that " the 
right of revolution is a political right, the doctrine of revolution a 
political doctrine ; and, therefore, we have no reason to expect that 
they will be taught us in the word of God ; I receive them as true 
upon the authority of reason:" p. 69. So that the conclusion you 
seem finally to reach is that " passive obedience" is the doctrine 
of Scripture ; but the right of revolution, the doctrine of reason ! 
And let it be noted, you come to this conclusion, although you had 
a few lines before, declared that passive obedience is "not implied" 
in the command to obey Nero ! The truth must lie somewhere in 
the confusion of these contradictory propositions ; and, in my 
judgment, it lies just here: resistance to tyrants may be justified 
by the Word of God ; and, therefore, the doctrine of revolution is 
a scriptural doctrine. 

§ 3. Y'^our attempted distinction between what is scriptural and 
what is political, is an entire fallacy, so far as the general princi- 
ples of duty are concerned. Y'^ou say that "the Scriptures were 



102 

given to teach us religion and not politics ;" p. 69. But is not 
"politics" the science of our duties and obligations to the State? 
The Bible regulates our duties to God, to ourselves, to our fellow- 
creatures, and to the State. We owe no duty to the State that 
cannot be derived from the Bible. All our political duties are 
moral duties. Is not obedience a political duty? And does not 
the Bible place obedience on moral grounds — " wherefore, ye must 
needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake :" 
Rom. 13 : 5. All our duties to the State are taught in the Scrip- 
tures. The Word of God gives us the general principles of morality 
that apply to civil despotism and slavery, whilst the details about 
revolution and the plans of emancipation are political measures, 
which belong to the State. Your error is in saying that, emanci- 
pation being political, places it beyond the reach of the Bible and 
of the Church. 

§ 4. I have, by no means, intended to deny that there is a broad 
distinction between the Church and the State, as likewise between 
each of these and the family. But this does not withdraw either, 
or all of them, from the reach of moral, religious, and Christian 
obligation. A wrong, immoral, or sinful act does not cease to be 
such, because it is done in the family or by the State. It is just 
as "properly sinful" as if done by an individual. If a community, 
in their political capacity license gambling, or prostitution, the act 
of granting the license, or using it, is none the less sinful in both 
parties, because it is done politically. If the people in any of 
these United States vote to establish a despotism vfith power to 
persecute Christianity, they do a wicked act. If the constitution 
and laws of Virginia should be so altered as to prohibit masters 
from teaching their slaves to read the Bible, all parties to such a 
proceeding would be guilty of sin. The State is under moral obli- 
gations to act righteously. Slaveholding, as it now exists in the 
southern portion of our country, may not now be, nor do I believe 
it is, a sinful relation on the part of the great body of the masters, 
nor does it involve sin on the part of the lawgivers simply for autho- 
rizing its present existence. But a condition of things may arise, 
in which what is now sinless may become sinful, whether allowed 
or not by the State. Things in their own nature sinful, or things 
indifferent in themselves which in given circumstances are incon- 
sistent with Christian love, justice, and mercy, are not made other- 
wise, because authorized by the civil power. The continuance of 
slavery by law, when " well being" and " the general good" require 
emancipation, would be sinful. 

§ 5. A singular climax is reached by your statement, that, when 
you say, civil despotism, or slavery, is " expedient or inexpedient, 
right or wrong, according to circumstances," you " do not mean 
wrong in the 'proper sense of sinful:" p. 69. Then, my dear 
Doctor, why use the word at all ? In what sense do you use it ? 
If wrong does not properly mean "sinful," what does "right" pro- 



103 

perly mean? and what does " morals" properly mean ? and what 
does adiaphora properly mean ? Is any meaning better deter- 
mined than the ordinary meaning of "right and wrong?" Do 
these terms, in moral questions, ever fail to denote the moral 
quality of actions and relations? Ought right and wrong to have 
two meanings in a minister's vocabulary ? 

It is, indeed, not to be denied that some things, in themselves 
indifferent, may be inexpedient, which could not at the same time 
be pronounced sinful. Such things as protective tariffs and free 
trade, greater or less costliness of dress or equipage, in certain cir- 
cumstances, might be put into this category. But there are others 
again, whose inexpediency arises from the circumstcmces that ren- 
der them immoral, or direct instruments of immorality and irre- 
ligion. They are inexpedient, because, though in some circum- 
stances innocent, yet in the circumstances in question, they are 
immoral. The mere sale, or use, of ardent spirits is a thing indif- 
ferent. It is sinful or sinless, according to circumstances. But, if 
a man were to keep a tippling shop, in which he derives his profits 
from pandering to vicious appetites and making drunkards of the 
young men of a community, this is criminal and unchristian, although 
he could show a thousand licenses from the civil authority for doing 
it. The same would be true of engaging in the African slave 
trade, although Southern convention after convention were to favour 
it, and the Federal Government were to sanction it. And, in 
general, to take your own expression, any slaveholuing, which does 
not " subsist in conformity to the law of God," is of the same cha- 
racter. Although there are adiaphora in the sphere of religion and 
politics which may be deemed inexpedient without being pronounced 
sinful, there are others which are inexpedient, because, in the cir- 
cumstances, the doing of them inevitably involves sin. Of this sort, 
is the procuring, or the holding of slaves, in circumstances which 
make it contrary to Christian love, justice, and mercy. And it 
alters not the moral nature of such conduct to label it "political." 

§ 6. It is deserving of notice that slaveholding is not a political 
institution in the sense that it is made obligatory by law. A slave- 
holder can emancipate his slaves in Virginia at any time he sees 
proper, or his conscience will allow ; and notwithstanding certain 
restrictions in some of the States, it is believed that in none is 
the subject altogether withdrawn from the master's control. In 
your State, the continuance or discontinuance of slaveholding is a 
question, depending, indeed, upon considerations of the social and 
public welfare, but yet not requiring political action. Emancipa- 
tion has been generally regarded, in such cases, as a benevolent, 
moral, or religious act, and it is performed by the individual in the 
fear of God, without reference to the powers that be. The general 
spirit of the laws, as well as of public opinion, may be even opposed 
to emancipation ; and yet the individual, as a citizen, has a perfect 
right to give freedom to his slaves. In such cases, in what sense 



104 

is the continuance or discontinuance of slaveholding "in part a 
'political doctrine, which it is the business of the statesman to ex- 
pound, and the civil ruler to apply ?" Granting, however, certain 
political relations, I have shown that this does not exclude the 
general principles of the Bible from controlling the subject. 

§ 7. Nor does it alter anything, so far as our present issue is 
concerned, to say that what the Scriptures teach is one thing, and 
what I know by the natural faculties is another thing. The distinc- 
tion between these things is important, and where the teachings of 
reason and revelation are in conflict, requires us to submit reason 
to revelation. But it does not admit of the possibility of two con- 
tradictory beliefs in the same mind, at the same time, in regard to 
the same subject. I cannot believe on the authority of Scripture 
that all slaveholding is sinless, and on the authority of my reason 
that some slaveholding is sinful. These propositions exclude each 
other. If I believe one to be true on whatever evidence, I cannot, 
at the same time, believe the other to be true, on any evidence 
whatsoever. Now, as Dr. Armstrong admits, with Dr. Hodge, p. 
72, that, in some circumstances, domestic slavery may be wrong 
and unjust, and that it is so in circumstances involving a violation of 
the Divine law, p. 6, you must hold what you call your scriptural 
doctrine that " slaveholding is not a sin in the sight of God" in 
the sense of a particular and not a universal proposition, i. e., that 
some slaveholding is not a sin — and not that all slaveholding is sin- 
less, and consequently you must hold that the former of these two 
last statements, gives the true and exact Scripture doctrine, and 
the ivliole doctrine, too. 

Withal, your proposition, that " slaveholding is not a sin in the 
sight of God" is not in the language of Scripture. And, even if 
it were, it is only necessary to remember that a proposition, which 
is a general one in its form, is often in reality, like yours, a parti- 
cular one. It is one of the simplest laws of interpretation, that, 
where the extent in which the subject of a proposition is used, is 
not determined by such qualifying adjuncts as " some," " all," 
" every," &c., we must infer it from other things which show the 
writer's meaning. Those who are conversant Avith Arminian and 
Universalist polemics, know how often it is necessary to adopt 
some exegetical qualification. When your meaning is explicated 
in full and exact expression, it emerges into precisely my own pro- 
position. Your distinction between Scripture and reason is, quoad 
hoc, utterly pointless. Nor does it require a very high exercise of 
the " natural faculties" to see this. 

§ 8. It is with some surprise that I find you saying that you 
accept some things as true, but not as binding upon the conscience. 
You say, " the first statement [yours] sets forth truth which must 
bind the conscience, and exactly defines the limits of Church power. 
The latter [mine] though I receive it as true, does neither the one 
nor the other :" p. 70. The fact is, to a conscientious man this 



105 

is a sheer impossibility. So far as a man believes a given propo- 
sition to be tiiue, he is bound, and feels bound in conscience, to act 
as if it were true. Some propositions and truths are, indeed, more 
immediately ethical in their nature than others, and thus speak 
more directly to the conscience. Among the first, and self-evident 
principles of ethics is this, that we ought to cleave and conform to 
the truth. The proposition that two and two make four is not a 
scriptural or ethical proposition. Neither is the proposition that 
our country is increasing in population with unexampled rapidity. 
But he, who regards them as true, is bound by Scripture and con- 
science to act as if they were so. He sins in doing otherwise. The 
Bible does not explicitly announce every true thing which we are 
to believe, and to be bound by in our conduct, although its prin- 
ciples lead to it. It assumes that a multitude of things, which con- 
trol our interpretation and application of it, are known otherwise. 
And it enjoins us, "if there be any virtue," to regard "whatsoever 
things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things 
are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, 
whatsoever things are of good report :" Phil. 4 : 8. Whatever, 
therefore, you believe to be true respecting slaveholding, must bind 
your conscience. Slaveholding can never get beyond the authority 
of conscience and the Bible. 

SECTION III. — DR. ARMSTRONG ON THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY. 

In showing that my form of statement was coincident with that 
of the General Assembly, a comparison was instituted between it 
and all the deliverances of the Assembly from 1787 to 1845. You 
carefully avoid any reference to any action of the General As- 
sembly, except the one of 1845, which is the only one you venture 
to claim as in any respect covering your ground. Why is this, 
Doctor? Are you afraid of the whole light? Or do you think 
that the action of 1845 was scriptural, whilst all the previous action 
was only deducible by " reason?'' Or do you believe that the tes- 
timony of 1845 was contrary to, and subversive of, the testimony 
of 1787 and of 1818 ? If you take the latter ground, then I beg 
you to remember that the Assembly of 1846 passed the following 
resolution: '■'■Resolved, That in the judgment of this House, the 
action of the General Assembly of 1845 was not intended to deny 
or rescind the testimony often uttered by the General Assemblies 
previous to that date," Baird's Digest, 814. So you perceive that 
the Assembly's testimony is 07ie liarmonious tvhole. 

But without pressing you further on this point, I turn to your 
singular evasions of the forms of statements adopted by the Assem- 
bly of 1845. These forms are obviously, both in spirit and in 
words, so precisely like my own, that the only method of getting 
round them is to raise the cry of "abolition!" Your argument 
is that, because the abolitionists use a certain form of expression, 



106 

therefore, the expressions of the Assembly, which are similar but 
in the negative, are " like poor land, which the more a man has, the 
worse ofl" he is." Now does not my good Brother Armstrong know 
that it makes no difference from what quarter the language comes, 
provided the Assembly judged it suitable to give expression to its 
own opinions ? But such a trivial objection — which is worth to a 
controversialist about as much as a Virginia "old field" is to a 
planter — has not even the solidity of "poor land," but vanishes 
away into a cloud of dust before the sweeping statement of the 
General Assembly, in these words : " The question, therefore, 
which this General Assembly is called upon to decide, is this : Do 
the Scriptures teach that the holding of slaves, without regard to 
circumstances, is a sin, the renunciation of which should be made 
a condition of membership in the Church of Christ ?" p. 812. That 
was the point which the Assembly not only expressed in its own 
language, but decided by its last action, viz., that circumstances 
enter into the justification, or condemnation, of slaveholding. 

It may be added that Dr. N. L. Rice, who drew up the Report, 
is not apt to use the contradictory of the language of abolitionists, 
unless it is the very best form to meet their fanaticism. There is 
not a particle of evidence from the records, however, to show that 
the Assembly merely followed the language of others. The four 
quotations varg inform, which is the best possible proof that the 
language is original and independent, whilst the idea of "circum- 
stances" pervades the whole Report. Your "leafless tree" must, 
therefore, continue to remain in its withered state : for it receives 
neither light nor heat from the luminary of the General Assembly. 
Here are the four quotations referred to : 

1. '' The question, which is now unhappily agitating and dividing other branches 
of the Church, is, whether the holding of slaves is under all circumstances, a 
heinous sin, calling for the discipline of the Church." 

2. " The question which this Assembly is called upon to decide is this : Do 
the Scriptures teach that the holding of slaves, without regard to circumstances, 
is a sin ?" 

3. " The Apostles did not denounce the relation itself as sinful." 

4. " The Assembly cannot denounce the holding of slaves as necessarily a 
heinous and scandalous sin." 

If the reader wishes to see how the uniform testimony of the 
General Assembly sustains my form of stating the doctrine (whilst 
it ignores that of Dr. Armstrong), he may find the record on page 
41 of this Pamphlet. 

SECTION IV. — DR. ARMSTRONG'S WEAPON TO DO BATTLE WITH. 

I Still think that your mode of stating the doctrine lacks the 
power of resisting abolitionism. Nor am I convinced of the con- 
trary by the "fact" you adduce, which is, indeed, somewhat 
shadowy or indefinite. If we are to understand by the " fact," 



107 

Dr. Hill's high estimate of your skill as a champion, it does not 
necessarily follow that, after seeing your statement of the doctrine, 
Dr. Hill should consider it the best possible; and if he should, I 
do not see that his opinion is more of " a fact" than mine. Or if 
the " fact" be that the two selected champions could not agree on 
the terms of the combat, I do not think this is a proof of skill on 
either side. Or if the " fact" be that, after you had put forth your 
argument, you gave your adversary the challenge to fight in the 
mode of your own choice, I do not think it a necessary and logical 
inference that his declination shows he considered your arguments, 
in all respects, unanswerable. And if he did, it is not clear that 
all other people should ; or that my opinion should not have as 
much weight as that of a man who, for some reason or other, has 
not condescended to notice your excellent book at all. I deny, 
therefore, the correctness of your charge, that I have " compelled 
you to become a fool in glorying," because there has really been 
no occasion to glory. 

Do not understand me as, in the least, disparaging your ability 
as a logician and controversialist. Far from it. No man, pro- 
bably, in Virginia could sustain, with more plausibility and force, 
your defective proposition on slavery. But notwithstanding all 
this exhibition of your controversial skill, I believe it to be a "fact," 
that your proposition is " no weapon to do battle with." The state- 
ment that " slaveholding is not a sin in the sight of God," without 
reference to circumstances, has not the capacity to do full execu- 
tion. As a cannon-ball with holes and cavities cannot be made to 
go straight, so your statement of doctrine zigzags away from the 
mark, in spite of all your propelling powers. 

I have never doubted the purity of your intentions. But it is a 
singular development of human nature that men, who were born at 
the North, should generally be the warmest advocates of extrava- 
gant pro-slavery views. This is not said in invidiam; but as a 
simple rejoinder to your statement that, being born at the North, 
you had many prejudices to overcome, before reaching your present 
opinions. I do not doubt the truth of this latter statement. 

SECTION V. — DR. ARMSTRONG ON SYLLOGISMS. 

§ 1. Let us now turn again, from comparatively irrelevant matter, 
to the real point at issue. You have put your argument, with some 
show of triumph, into the form of a syllogism, and peremptorily 
call me to meet the argument " fairly and squarely," for " thus 
only can you [I] influence the opinions of thinking men :" p. 78. 
I accept the syllogistic form and the appeal to thinking men, and 
shall endeavour to show the weakness of your first and principal 
syllogism. The others require no notice, now. Your syllogism is 
as follows : 

" A. Whatever Christ and his inspired Apostles refused to make 



108 

a bar to communion, a court of Christ lias no authority to make 
such. 

" But, Christ and his inspired Apostles did refuse to make 
slaveholding a bar to communion. 

" Therefore, a court of Christ has no authority to make slave- 
holding a bar to communion :" p. 76. 

§ 2. In the tirst place, I deny the correctness of your logical 
view of the syllogism ; and in the second place, I maintain that, 
even if the syllogism were faultless, it would not prove that my 
statement of the Scripture doctrine of slavery was wrong. 

As to the syllogism, the error is in supposing that there are no 
circumstances, of any sort, in the premises. It is true that no 
circumstances, or qualifications, are introduced expressly, or in so 
many words ; but they are imj)lied; and, according to " a funda- 
mental principle of logic," they are implied, to an equal extent, in 
the conclusion. I have shown, over and over again, that your own 
proposition, when analyzed, has reference to some, not to all sla- 
very ; and, therefore, that some circumstances are necessarily in- 
troduced. In your answer to the question Avhether your proposi- 
tion " involves the idea that all slaveholding is sinless in the sight 
of God," you say, " By no means :" p. 6. And again, your pro- 
position " can properly apply to such slaveholding only as subsists 
in conformity with the law of God :" p. 7. Now all such circum- 
stances, that render slaveholding unlawful, are implied in the pre- 
mise, and consequently in the conclusion. The resolution, adopted 
by the General Assembly, explicitly refers to circumstances in the 
general, under which slavery exists in the United States. The 
Assembly's paper was formed in view of those circumstances, and 
they qualify the whole document. 

It is perfectly clear that "circumstances" must be necessarily 
implied to some extent, in your syllogism, according to your theory 
of its meaning ; and " circumstances" are involved in the conclu- 
sion by a "fundamental principle of logic." 

§ 3. Admitting, however, that slaveholding, within the limits 
specified by yourself (which exclude the general circumstances 
connected with "well being" and the "public welfare," called by 
you " political"), cannot be made a bar to Church communion, 
what then ? Does this prove that slaveholding does not become 
sinful, when "well being" and the "public welfare" require eman- 
cipation ? Or does it prove that slaveholding may continue to exist 
without sin " until Christ's second coming ?" By no means. Slave- 
holding may become sinful under circumstances in which it cannot 
be made the subject of Church discipline. It is just because slave- 
holding is right or wrong according to circumstances, that it is not 
allowed to become a bar to Church communion. Expediency can- 
not be made the ground of universal and perpetual obligation ; and, 
therefore, things that in morals are classed among the adiaphora 
are not necessarily within the range of Church discipline. But 



109 

are such things, therefore, innocent under all circumstances ? Of 
course not. Their very nature implies the contrary. The fact 
that the Church is precluded, by the nature of the case, from dis- 
ciplining persons, whose conduct is " right or uwong according to 
circumstances," does not acquit such persons of sin. They may 
be great sinners " in the sight of God," for holding their fellow- 
men in bondage under circumstances contrary to " well being" and 
the "public welfare;" although the Church, which cannot read the 
hearts of men, or decide upon the details covering every case, may 
be prevented from exercising discipline. Your syllogism, there- 
fore, proves nothing. 

As the proper jurisdiction of the Church comes up in your next 
Letter, I will reserve its further discussion for that occasion. 



SECTION VI. — DR. ARMSTRONG EXPLAINING HIS PROPOSITION. 

One of the most singular things in this controversy — which, I do 
not wonder, begins to assume to you the appearance of "a dark 
and bloody ground" — is that my friend. Dr. Armstrong, first de- 
clares that every proposition "should be so expressed" as to bear 
examination " apart from all explanations," and then feels him- 
self compelled, at every point, to offer explanations. This neces- 
sity is inherent in the nature of your doctrinal statement, and its 
defectiveness is made manifest by your own rule. A proposition 
that needs continual explanations, must be either obscurely or illo- 
gically expressed. I think yours is both ; and obscurely, because 
illogicaliy. 

§ 1. Your first explanation is uncalled for ; because your propo- 
sition, faulty as it is, was never charged with sanctioning the "in- 
cidental evils of slavery." 

In saying, with Dr. Spring, that " the bondage of the Hebrews 
partook of the character of apprenticeship rather than of rigorous 
servitude," reference was made to the mode of treatment under the 
two relations, without confounding their nature. 

It seems that my good brother Armstrong is willing to adopt 
the phraseology, " Slaveholding, in itself considered, is not sinful," 
provided I will allow him to make an explanation that explains it 
away; but on all such explanations as causes it to mean, "slave- 
holding free from its incidental evils," I am constrained to put my v 
veto. Your explanation makes the meaning to be, " slaveholding 
in itself considered is right, if the circumstances are right;" that 
is, " slaveholding, without regard to circumstances is right, if the 
circumstances are right !" 

§ 2. Your proposition certainly seems to justify the permanence 
of slavery. Notwithstanding your protests and disclaimers, and 
although you mean not so, your doctrine establishes passive obedi- 
ence and the perpetuity of despotism and slavery. You set forth, 



110 

as an article of faith, binding the conscience, that we must obey 
the powers that be, and that despotism and shivery are not sins. 
You object to interpolating into these propositions any qualifying 
or limiting circumstances, and have written two elaborate Letters 
against it. You, indeed, believe that circumstances may make them 
wrong: p. 7. But, then, you believe this "upon the authority 
of reason," and therefore, as you hold, this belief does not bind the 
conscience. Whoever, then, under the most oppressive despotism 
contends for the right of revolution, or when a community has 
fairly outgrown the state in which slavery is otherwise than unjust, 
for emancipation, is contending for what does not bind any man's 
conscience ; while the doctrine that despotism and slavery are no 
sins — to which you will not allow any limitation from circumstances 
to be applied — confronts him, and does bind his conscience. How,, 
if this be so, can a conscientious man, in any " circumstances" un- 
dertake to withhold obedience from despots, and exercise the " right 
of revolution," or venture to promote emancipation ? 

§ 3. The proposition that "slaveholding is not a sin in the sight 
of God," is so broad as to appear to cover up many circumstances 
that make it wrong. As an abstract proposition, without any ex- 
planation, — and you say, it ought to be so clear as to dispense with 
explanations — it certainly seems to involve the consequences men- 
tioned in one of my Letters. Some of your explanations, of course, 
relieve it from some of the objections ; but not from all. As a 
moral rule for keeping the conscience in a healthful condition, it 
is peculiarly faulty. If the relation becomes a sinful one, when- 
ever the circumstances of " well being" and the " public welfare" 
require its dissolution, how completely in the dark does your state- 
ment keep the moral agent ! What you call the scriptural doctrine 
is only a part of the true doctrine, and it tends to lull the con- 
science under the professed guidance of revelation. 

§ 4. Your objection to my proposition that it "acquits the slave- 
holding member of the Church by a sort of luliip and clear him 
judgment," is as untenable as ever, notwithstanding your version 
of that expression. It seems, by the bye, that the expression, 
instead of meaning "strike first, and then acquit," means "acquit 
first, and then strike !" How my statement can be interpreted into 
Lynch-law, which, either way, means the same thing, I am at a 
loss to conjecture. Mine is, you perceive, the exact contradictory 
of the abolition doctrine. It, in fact, " whips" the abolitionist, 
whilst it " clears" the slaveholder, if " circumstances" are in his 
favour. Far be it from me to cast any odium upon my brethren at 
the South, who are faithfully endeavouring to do their duty in the 
midst of many trials and anxieties. " God bless them in their 
work of faith and labour of love," is the prayer of ten thousands 
of Christians at the North. I have honestly thought that my pro- 
position affords to the conscientious slaveholder a clearer vindica- 
tion than yours ; and it is not encumbered with the difficulties and 
logical consequences, that press yours on every side. 



Ill 

§ 5. The last paragraph in your Letter is singularly out of place. 
In arguing against your statement, I attempted to show that the 
opinions, which you complain of my charging upon you, were 
" fairly involved" in that form of statement. A controversialist 
is not supposed to charge the obnoxious inferences as the opinions 
of his adversary, but rather, to take it for granted that he repu- 
diates these opinions, and hence will be constrained to repudiate 
the doctrine that leads to them by legitimate consequences ; or at 
all events, if not he, that the public, to whom the argument is also 
addressed, will repudiate it. However this may be, no one has a 
right to complain of an adversary for showing the evil consequences 
of his opinions. To object to the refutation of an argument by 
showing its false consequences, is to object to its being refuted at 
all. 

SECTION Vir. — THOUGHTS TOWARDS THE CLOSE. 

§ 1. It is not at all unlikely that many " thinking men," who care- 
fully consider our respective statements, will think the statement, 
" slaveholding is not necessarily and in all circumstances sinful" 
a much better one than " slaveholding is not a sin in the sight of 
God." My statement needs no explanations, whilst yours requires 
props on every side. 

§ 2. Your suggestion of spending ten hours to my one, in con- 
sidering the subject of slavery, is of no avail in an argument. Moral 
propositions depend upon being supported by truth, not time. 
There are some men, who are " always learning, and never able to 
come to a knowledge of the truth." This, of course, does not 
apply to yourself ; especially, because you are so near the truth, 
that there is every reason to expect that you will soon reach it, in 
its perfection. 

§ 3. Your complaint that our brethren at the South have been 
subjected to much misapprehension and obloquy by fanatical men \/ 
at the North is unfortunately true. I deprecate this as much as 
you do. But a good degree of this abuse has been owing to the 
ultra defenders of slavery, whose unwarrantable statements and 
arguments have provoked a spirit of alienation and a fierce reaction 
both in sentiment and in opinion. The continuance of the peace 
of our Church depends, under God, upon the continuance of the 
moderation which has hitherto characterized our spirit, opinions, 
and measures. 

§ 4. You say, " Let Mr. Barnes specify the circumstances, and 
I doubt whether even he would object to your statement:" p. 76. 
This is precisely what Mr. Barnes has no right to do for another 
man. He may form his own judgment of the case, and express it, 
and argue it, and endeavour to make all others receive it as true. 
But he cannot enforce his own views as a moral standard for others. 
As he admits that "Abraham's slaveholding was no sin," there is 
good reason to hope for candour, in general. But neither he, nor I, 



112 

nor any other man, can make liis own rule of morality, in matters 
that are adiaphora, to be authot'iti/ for anybody else. 

§ 5. You ask, why your statement sounds in my ears " like an 
old tune with unpleasant variations," and sung, you might have 
added, by the chorister almost alone, whilst Dr. Hodge's sounds 
like " Old Hundred," in which the whole congregation joins ? I 
will tell you. Your form of statement is unknown to the General 
Assembly, from its organization down to the present time. You 
cannot point to a single sentence in all our Church testimonies that, 
rightly "said or sung," harmonizes with yours. Dr. Hodge, on 
the other hand, agrees with the General Assembly, whose form of 
statement is also adopted by your opponent. Dr. Hodge is in 
sympathy with all the deliverances of the General Assembly, whilst 
to many of them you carefully avoid allusion, in the very midst of 
the subject which invites an appeal to them ; and even the testimony 
of 1845 you appear to desire to explain away, and to extract the 
very pith of doctrine from that majestic rod, that buds even like 
Aaron's. 

§ 6. The eternal principles of justice, which are revealed in the 
Holy Scriptures, and are the reflection of the attributes of God, 
must decide the various questions relating to domestic servitude, 
and justify or condemn "according to circumstances." Whilst we 
both agree in the appeal to that tribunal, whose decision is " of 
record," happier is he who will be found at last to have interpreted 
that record aright, and to have exhibited the truth in nearest con- 
formity to the Divine will ! 

I am yours, truly, 

C. Van Rensselaer. 



DR. VAN RENSSELAER'S SECOND REJOINDER. 

EMANCIPATION AND THE CHURCH.* 

To THE Rev. G. D. Armstrong, D.D. : 

Your second rejoinder discusses three subjects, 1. Emancipa- 
tion and the Church. 2. Emancipation and the State, or Schemes 
of Emancipation. 3. The History of Anti-slavery Opinions. 

The second subject is an entirely new one, which I have hitherto 
refrained from touching, and which, under ordinary circumstances, 
I should still decline to discuss. 

SECTION I. IS EMANCIPATION EXCLUSIVELY A POLITICAL 

QUESTION ? 

It has been my endeavour to discriminate carefully between the 
moral and political aspects of slavery, and to disclaim any inter- 

* The course of remark pursued in thisarticle, was determined chiefly by Dr. Arm- 
strong's Rejoinder, to which it is a reply. The Scriptural argument is stated more 
particularly in my previous letters. 



113 

feronce of the Church, with the proper work of the State. The 
State alone possesses the right to esta1)]ish and enforce measures 
of general emancipation. But does legislation exhaust the sub- 
ject ? In my judgment, it does not. Emancipation has moral 
and religious relations, as well as political. No slaveholder has 
the moral right to keep his slaves in bondage, if they are pre-*^ 
pared for freedom, and he can wisely set them free.* 

1. There is a distinction between a moral end, to be kept in 
view, and the political means of attaining that end. The mea- 
sures to secure emancipation may be political measures, but the 
end contemplated rests upon a moral obligation. It is my duty, 
as a Christian, to prepare my slaves for freedom, when Provi- 
dence opens the way ; and yet, I may be so restrained by State 
laws as to depend upon political intervention for a plan of emanci- 
pation. With the latter, the Church has nothing to do. 

2. Slavery is not, like despotism, enjoined by law. Every in- 
dividual may be a slaveholder or not, as he plea^^s. Here is an / 
important distinction, which you entirely overlook. Whilst the 
State has the right to control emancipation, and can alone ori- 
ginate general measures, binding upon all its citizens, it com- 
monly leaves emancipation to the discretion of the slaveholder 
himself. In Virginia, any person may emancipate his slaves, who 
makes provision for their removal out of the State. The act of eman- 
cipation, under these circumstances, is a lawful act of the master, 
which in no way interferes with politics. ^Vhere shall a person thus 
situated, whose conscience troubles him, go for direction ? To the 
State? To the members of the Legislature ? No ! The question is 
one of duty to his God. It involves a religious and moral prin- 
ciple ; and, admitting that his slaves are prepared for freedom, it 

is outside of politics. The slaveholder must search the Scriptures, 
or he may consult the testimonies of the Church for her interpre- 
tation of the Scriptures. The Church has a perfect right to give 
to her members advice on this subject which will guide them in 
perplexity ; and this advice may be volunteered, if circumstances 
seem to demand it. 

3. Slaves stand, ecclesiastically, in the relation of children to 
parents. Our General Assembly has declared that Christian mas- 
ters, who have the right to bring their children to baptism, may 
also present for baptism, in their own name, the children of their 
slaves. Can it be conceived that the Church has no right to coun- 
sel her members concerning the nature and continuance of this 
peculiar relationship throughout her own households ? 

4. Slaveholding is "right or wrong, according to circumstances." 
It belongs in morals to the adiaplLora^ or things indifferent. It 
may be right in 1858, and wrong in 1868, according as the slaves 
may be not prepared, or prepared, for emancipation. The very 

* A fair compensation may be claimed for the pecuniary sacrifice involved in 
manumission, either from the IState or from the slaves tliemselves. 

8 



114 

nature of the class of subjects to which it belongs, places it within 
the scope of church testimony. The continuance or discontinuance 
of slaveholding, concerns the character of the slaveholder as a 
righteous man. 

5. Even if the State should altogether remove emancipation from 
the power of the individual slaveholder, and determine to exercise 
exclusive jurisdiction over the matter, what then ? In the first 
place, the obligation would still rest upon the master to elevate his 
slaves, and to set them free whenever the way was open. And in 
the second place, the master would be bound, as a citizen, to exert 
himself to obtain from the State the necessary public measures to 
secure at the right time the same object. 

Emancipation is not "properly a political question" in any sense 
that makes it cease to be a moral and religious one. So far as it 
partakes of the latter character, the Church has a right, within the 
limits of her authority, to utter her testimony in favour of it. 

SECTION ir. — SLAVERY AND THE INTERESTS OF THE LIFE TO 

COME. 

One of your arguments for excluding emancipation from the in- 
fluence of Church testimony is that " it does not immediately con- 
cern the interests of the life to come." This point can best be de- 
termined by impartial witnesses, personally acquainted with the 
practical workings of slavery. Allow me, then, in all courtesy, to 
introduce the testimony of some of the ablest and most respected 
ministers of the Presbyterian Church, who are familiar with the 
system in its best forms. A Committee, appointed by the Synod 
of Kentucky, made a Report to that body, in 1835, in which they 
characterized the system of slavery in the following manner : 

"There are certain effects springing naturally and necessarily out of 
such a system, which must also be considered. 

" 1. Its most striking effect is, to deprave and degrade its suhjecta hi/ re- 
moving from them the strongest natural checks to htiman corruption. 
There are certain principles of human nature by which God works to 
save the moral world from ruin. In the slave these principles are eradi- 
cated. He is degraded to a mere creature of appetite and passion. These 
are the feelings by which he is governed. The salt which preserves 
human nature is extracted, and it is left a putrefying mass. 

"2. It dooms thousands of human Icings to hopeless ignorance. The 
slave has no motive to acquire knowledge. The master will not un- 
dergo the expense of his education. The law positively forbids it. Nor 
can this state of things become better unless it is determined that slavery 
shall cease. Slavery cannot be perpetuated if education be generally or 
universally given to slaves. 

" 3. It deprives its snhjects, in a great measure, of the privileges of 
the Gospel. Their inability to read prevents their access to the Scrip- 
tures. The Bible is to them a sealed book. There is no adequate pro- 
vision made for their attendance upon the public means of grace. Nor 
are they prepared to profit from instructions designed for their masters. 



115 

They listen when in the sanctuary to prophesyings in an unknown 
tongue. Comparatively few of them are taught to bow with their masters 
around the domestic altar. Family ordinances of religion are almost un- 
known in the domestic circles of the blacks. 

" 4. This si/stem licenses and j:)rodnces great crueUy. The whip is 
placed in the hands of the master, and he may use it at his pleasure, 
only avoiding the destruction of life. Slaves often suffer all that can be 
inflicted by wanton caprice, by grasping avarice, by brutal lust, by ma- 
lignant spite, and by insane anger. Their happiness is the sport of every 
whim, and the prey of every passion that may enter the master's bosom. 
Their bodies are lacerated with the lash. Their dignity is habitually 
insulted. Their tenderest affections are wantonly crushed. Dearest 
friends are torn asunder. Brothers and sisters, parents and children, see 
each other no more. There is not a neighbourhood where these heart- 
rending scenes are not displayed. There is not a village or a road that 
does not behold the sad procession of manacled outcasts, whose chains 
and mournful countenances tell that they are exiled by force from all 
they hold dear. 

" 5. It produces general licentiousness among the slaves. Marriage, 
as a civil ordinance, they cannot enjoy. Their marriages are mere con- 
tracts, voidable at their master's pleasure or their own. And never, in 
any civilized country, has respect for these restraints of matrimony been 
more nearly obliterated than it has been among our blacks. This system 
of universal concubinage produces revolting licentiousness. 

"6. This sf/sfem demoralizes the ichites as well as the Hacks. The 
masters are clothed with despotic power. To depraved humanity this is 
exceedingly dangerous. Indolence is thus fostered; And hard-hearted- 
ness, selfishness, arrogance, and tyranny are, in most men, rapidly de- 
veloped and fearfully exhibited. 

"7. This system draws doion upon us the vengeance of Heaven. 'If 
thou forbear to deliver them that are drawn to death, and those that are 
ready to be slain ; if thou sayest, Behold, we knew it not ; doth not he 
that pondereth the heart consider it? and he that keepeth thy soul, doth 
he not know it? and shall he not render to every man according to his 
works?' 'The people of the land have used oppression, and exercised 
robbery, and have vexed the poor and needy; yea, they have oppressed 
the stranger wrongfully. . . . Therefore have I poured out mine in- 
dignation upon them : I have consumed them with the fire of my wrath ; 
their own way have I recompensed upon their heads, saith the Lord.' 
Such is the system, such are some of its effects." 

The right of the Church to testify against the permanence of a 
system of this character, cannot be resisted by pointing to the 
overruling providence of God, through which many slaves have 
been brought into his kingdom. The Bible, it is true, treats the 
distinctions of this life as of comparatively little consequence, and 
enjoins submission even to wrong-doing and persecution. But 
must the Church, therefore, refrain from testifying against all 
social and moral evils, and from exhorting her members to use 
their best endeavours to bring them to an end ? 

The two facts adduced by you, do not prove that the Church 
has no interest in emancipation. 1. In regard to the number of 



116 

church members among the slaves, I deny that " a hirger propor- 
tion of the labouring classes belong to the Christian Church where 
the hibourers are chiefly slaves, than in the Northern States, where 
slavery does not exist." 

2. Your second fact, that the number of church members among 
the slaves, is nearly double the number of communicants in the 
heathen world, proves that God has overruled the system of slavery 
for good, but not that the Church has no interest in its abrogation. 
When we consider that at least fifteen thousand ministers of the 
Gospel live in the Slave States, being in the proportion of one 
minister to seven hundred of the whole population, while, on the 
other hand, the number of missionaries among the heathen is only 
in the proportion of one minister to three hundred thousand of the 
population, the comparison by no means exalts slavery as an in- 
strument of evangelization. Look, rather, for a better example to 
the Sandwich Islands, where society has been Christianized in a 
single generation. 

The system of slavery, as appears from the analysis of its evils 
by our Kentucky brethren, has so many and immediate connec- 
tions with the life to come, that the Christian Church may wisely 
testify in favour of its abrogation, as a lawful end, whenever Pro- 
vidence opens the way for it. 

SECTION III. — SLAVERY AND THE BIBLE. 

The Word of God, when fairly interpreted, contains much in- 
struction upon this subject. In the first place, the exhortation of 
Paul to the slaves is : " Art thou called, being a servant ? Care not 

for it. But IF TIIOU MAYST BE FREE, USE IT RATHER." (1 Cor. 

7 : 21.) This last declaration proves that slavery is not a natural 
and permanent condition ; that liberty is a higher and better state 
than bondage ; and that emancipation is an object of lawful desire 
to the slaves, and a blessing which Christian masters may labour 
to confer upon them. In endeavouring to escape the power of this 
apostolic declaration, you maintain that it has only a local applica- 
tion, and that " throughout the chapter, in answer to inquiries from 
the Church at Corinth, Paul is giving instruction with especial re- 
gard to the circumstances in which the Corinthians were placed at 
that time, and hence, every special item of advice must be inter- 
preted with this fact in view." The same thing is stated in your 
book. 

1. Admitting your local interpretation to be the true one, what 
then ? Does not my good brother Armstrong see that, if he in 
this way gets rid of Paul's declaration in favour of freedom, he 
also impairs the permanent obligation of Christian slaves to remain 
contented in their bondage ? If the second clause of the sentence 
has a local application, and is limited to the state of things in the 
Corinthian Church, is not i\\Q first clause limited by the same con- 
ditions ? 



117 

2. Again. The Apostle, in this chapter, carefully discriminates 
between what he speaks by ''permission" and what by "command- 
ment;" and it is strange logic that, because some passages, before 
and after the 21st verse, are of limited application, therefore every 
verse in the chapter is so. All that relates to virgins, and to the 
teuiporary avoidance of matrimony, &c., is declared to be merely 
advisory, in view of the existing state of things, or " the present 
distress;" whereas, the exhortation to believers to be contented 
with their external condition, from v. 17 to v. 24, is spoken by 
Divine authority; "and so ordain I in all the churches,'' v. 17. 
The whole of the passage, 17 — 24, is manifestly an authoritative 
declaration of inspiration. 

3. Your reasoning in regard to 1 Cor. 7 : 21 would be much 
more to the purpose, if the hypothesis were that persons were 
co7npelled by law to enter into the marriage state, or to marry par- 
ticular individuals. This would be analogous, in the most material 
points, to the case of the slaves. Surely, if one might be free from 
such compulsion, he ought to choose it rather, and that not only 
in apostolic times, but in every age. 

Neither your incorrect interpretation nor your incongruous illus- 
tration weakens the force of Paul's famous declaration in favour of 
freedom, as the best social condition and one that may rightfully 
be kept in view. Dr. Hodge says, in loco, "Paul's object is not to 
exhort men not to improve their condition, but simply not to allow 
their social relations to disturb them. lie could, with perfect con- 
sistency with the context, say, ' Let not your being a slave give 
you any concern ; but if you can become free, choose freedom 
rather than slavery.' " If the Church, following Paul's example, 
can give this exhortation to slaves, she can at least exhort and 
advise masters to take measures to prepare their slaves for freedom, 
"whenever Providence shall open the way for its blessings. 

I have not rested the right of the Church to keep emancipation 
in view, simply upon this single text, but I have showed that, not 
only do " the universal spirit and principles of religion originate 
and foster sentiments favourable to the natural rights of mankind," 
but that " the injunctions of Scripture to masters tend to and ne- 
cessarily terminate in emancipation." "If the Scriptures enjoin 
what, of necessity, leads to emanicipation, they enjoin emancipation, 
when the time comes; if they forbid what is necessary to the per- 
petuity of slavery, they forbid that slavery should be perpetuated." 
" The Church, therefore, may scripturally keep in view this great 
moral result, to the glory of her heavenly King." (See Letters.) 

SECTION IV. — THINfiS THAT AVAIL, OR AVAIL NOT. 

1. You remind me that "it will avail nothing to show that the 
Church has often made deliverances on the subject in years that are 
passed," and that "political preaching" and "political church- 
deliverances" date back "from the days of Constantino," when 



118 

Church and State became united. Here is an ingenious attempt 
to dishonour history, and to beat down ancient, as well as modern, 
testimony. 1. You seem to admit, on reconsideration, that the 
general testimony of the Church, from the days of Constantine, is 
against the perpetuity of slavery. 2. But how do you account for 
the fact that the General Assembly of our Church, which, from its 
very organization, has been free from State dominion, has uniformly 
testified in favour of preparing the slaves for liberty ? On refer- 
ring to your rejoinder, I find this aberration accounted for on the 
ground that our Church has not had time to "fully comprehend 
her true position !" A monarchist might say that, for the same 
reason, our fathers prematurely drew up the Declaration of Inde- 
pendence, not having waited long enough to comprehend the true 
position of their country ! How much time, beyond half a century, 
does it take the Presbyterian Church to define her interpretation 
of the word of God? The last deliverance of the General Assem- 
bly, in 1845, was affirmed by that body to be harmonious with the 
first deliverance in 1787. Fifty-eight years produced no variation 
of sentiment. This uniform testimony of the highest judicatory of 
the Church must naturally possess great weight, or will "avail" 
much, with every true Presbyterian.* 

2. You add, " Nor will it avail to show that emancipation has a 
hearing upon the well-being of a people — even their spiritual well- 
being." I am truly glad to obtain from Dr. Armstrong this inci- 
dental and gratuitous admission, that emancipation really has a 
bearing upon the best interests of the human family. I thank my 
good brother for it; although he immediately attempts to nullify it 
by the declaration that " commerce, railways, agriculture, manu- 
factures," &c., which also promote the welfare of society, cannot, 
simply on that account, become the subjects of ecclesiastical con- 
cern. Our Foreign Missionary Board might certainly build or 
charter a vessel, if necessary; and it actually sends out printers 
to work presses, farmers to till the soil, and physicians to minister 
to bodily health. On the same principle, it might send out 
" bells" for the mission churches, or even cast them in " foundries," 
if bells were of sufficient importance, and could not be otherwise 
obtained. But the principle on Avhich the Church testifies in favour 
of emancipation is, that it is a moral duty to set slaves free, when 
prepared in God's providence for freedom; and if the performance 
of a moral duty has "a bearing upon the well-being of a people," 
must it therefore be set aside ? 

3. You also state that it "will avail nothing in this argument, 

* If Dr. Baxter was a "wiser man" "eighteen years" after 1818, and was there- 
fore entitled to tlie consideration of higher wisdom in lt-36, then still higher wisdom 
is due to the General Assembly, in 184G, when that body reaffirmed the testimony 
of 1818, twenty-eight years after the issuing of their great document. 

I have yet to learn that Dr. Baxter changed his views on the subject of slavery. 
At least, no quotation of his sentiments by Dr. Armstrong proves it. I have sought 
in vain for a copy of Dr. Baxter's pamphlet. Will any friend present a copy to the 
Presbyterian Historical Society? C. V. R. 



119 

unless I can show that you ^^ place emancipatio7i in the wrong cate- 
gory, or that the Church has a right to meddle ivith politics." This 
is going over ground already discussed. Let me say, again, that 
the exhortation of the Church to keep emancipation as an end in 
view, does not prescribe either the mode or the time of emancipa- 
tion, and does not in any way come in conflict with the State ; and 
the Church does not "meddle with politics," when she concerns 
herself about moral duties. If it be a moral duty for a Christian 
to elevate his slaves and to set them free, when prepared for free- 
dom, the Church has a right to make that declaration, provided 
she thinks it fairly deducible from the spirit, principles, and pre- 
cepts of the word of God. 

SECTION V. — A NEW QUESTION ! POLITICS. SCHEMES OF EMAN- 
CIPATION. COLONIZATION, ETC. 

The largest part of your Rejoinder is taken up with new matter, 
which is foreign to the discussion of "Emancipation and the 
Church," and which, according to law, is irrelevant in a Rejoinder, 
the nature of which is an answer to a previous Replication. I 
regret that you have insisted upon opening this new field of dis- 
cussion ; but, believing that your remarks leave wrong impressions 
upon the mind of the reader, I shall take advantage of the occa- 
sion to throw out suggestions from a diiferent stand-point. 

SECTION VI. POPULAR ERROP.S. 

I propose, without finding fault with some of the popular err-ors 
on your list, to add to their number. I do this, in order to pre- 
sent additional and true elements which belong to the solution of 
this intricate and difficult problem. 

I. It is a mistake to suppose that the slaves have not a statural 
desire for freedom, however erroneous may be their views of free- 
dom. There are certain natural impulses which belong to man, 
by the constitution of his being. No slavery can quench the as- 
pirings for liberty. In the language of the late Governor Mc- 
Dowell, one of your old fellow-citizens, at Lexington, and one of 
Virginia's noblest sons, " Sir, you may place the slave where you 
please ; you may dry up to your uttermost the fountains of his 
feelings, the springs of his thought ; you may close upon his mind 
every avenue of knowledge, and cloud it over with artificial night ; 
you may yoke him to your labours as the ox which liveth only to 
work, and worketh only to live; you may put him under any pro- 
cess, which, without destroying his value as a slave, will debase and 
crush him as a rational being ; you may do this, and the idea that 
he was born to be free will survive it all. It is allied to his hope 
of immortality — it is the ethereal part of his nature, which op- 
pression cannot rend. It is a torch lit up in his soul by the hand 
of the Deity, and never meant to be extinguished by the hand of 
man." 



120 

If the desire of the slaves for freedom be not as intelligent as it 
might be, the excuse lies partly in the want of opportunities to 
acquire higher knowledge, and partly in the bad example of idle- 
ness set by the free blacks and by the whites. And if the privi- 
lege of liberty were granted in society only to those who enter- 
tained entirely correct views of its nature, how many thousands of 
free citizens in this, and in all lands, ought to be reduced to sla- 
very ? It deserves to be remarked in all candour, and without 
disparagement, that there is danger of the prevalence, in a slave- 
holding community, of an unintelligent estimate of the value of 
future liberty to the slaves. 

II. It is a mistake to suppose that slaves possess no natural 
rights. Their present incapacity to " exercise beneficially these 
rights" does not destroy the title to them, but only suspends it. 
In the mean time, the slaves possess the correlative right of being 
made prepared for the equal privileges of the whole family of man. 

Your remarks that slavery secures to the slaves the right to 
labour in a better way " than it is secured to a more elevated race 
of labourers in Europe, under any of the systems which prevail 
among the civilized nations of the Old World," will hardly be re- 
ceived by autocrats and despots as a plea for reviving slavery on 
the continent. Indeed, the new Emperor, Alexander of Russia, is 
engaged, at this very time, in the great work of doing homage to 
Christian civilization by emancipating all the serfs of the empire. 

III. Another error consists in regarding the Africans as an in- 
ferior race, fit onlij to he slaves. Infidelity, as you are aware, has 
been active at the South in inducing the belief that the negro be- 
longs to an inferior, if not a distinct race. This doctrine is the 
only foundation of perpetual slavery.* It is alike hostile to eman- 
cipation and injurious to all efforts to elevate the negro to his true 
position as a fellow-man and an immortal. The slaves belong to 
Adam's race ; are by nature under the wrath and curse, even as 
others ; subjects of the same promises ; partakers of the same 
blessings in Jesus Christ, and heirs of the same eternal inheritance. 
How the last great day will dissipate unscriptural and inhuman 
prejudices against these children of the common brotherhood ! 

IV. It is an error to suppose that slavery is not responsible for 
suffering, vice, and crime, prevalent under its domi7iion. Even 
were the slaves, if set free, to degenerate into a lower condition, 
slavery cannot escape from the responsibility of being an abettor 
of many injuries and evils. Much of the vice and crime of the 
manufacturing districts of England is undoubtedly owing to that 
system of labour, which thus becomes responsible for it. According 
to your theory, it would seem that no system of social or political 

* This defence of perpetual slavery is as old as Aristotle. That philosopher, 
wishing to establish some plausible plea for slavery, says, " The barbarians are of a 
different race from us, and were born to be slaves to the Greeks." To use the language of 
chess, this doctrine is "Aristotle's opening." 



121 

despotism is accountable for the darkness and degradation of the 
people. It is sin that causes all the maladies of slavery ! But is 
there no connection between slavery and sin, as demonstrated by 
the experience of ages ? Is slavery a system so innocent as to 
cast off the obligation to answer for all the suffering and wickedness 
that have been perpetrated under its connivance? Far be it from 
me to deny whatever good hus been accomplished, in divine Provi- 
dence, through human bondage. God brings good out of evil ; but 
I cannot shut my eyes to the conviction that slavery is directly re- 
sponsible to God for a large amount of iniquity, both among the 
whites and the blacks, which, like a dark cloud, is rolling its way 
to the judgment. 

V. It is an error to suppose that the African slave-trade ought 
to he revived. Among all the popular errors of the day, this is the 
most mischievous and wicked. God denounces the traffic in human 
flesh and blood. It has the taint of murder. Our national legis- 
lation righteously classes it with piracy, and condemns its abettors 
to the gallows. And yet, in Conventions and Legislatures of a 
number of the slave-holding States, the revival of the African slave- 
trade meets Avith favour. This fact is an ominous proof of the 
demoralization of public sentiment, under the influence and opera- 
tion of a system of slavery. 

VI. Another error is, that slavery is a permanent institution. 
Slavery in the United States must come to an end. Christianity 
is arraying the public opinion of the world against it. The reli- 
gion of Jesus Christ never has, and never can countenance the 
perpetuity of human bondage. The very soil of the planting 
States, which is growing poorer and poorer every year, refuses to 
support slavery in the long run. Its impoverished fields are not 
often renovated, and the system must in time die the death of its 
own sluggish doom. Besides, the competition of free labour must 
add to the embarrassments of slavery. Even Africa herself may 
yet contend with the slave productions of America, in the market 
of the world. 

In short, slavery is compelled to extinction by the operation of 
natural laws in the providence of the everliving God — which laws 
act in concert with the spirit and principles of his illuminating 
word. 

VII. Another popular delusion is, that slavery will ahraijs be a 
safe system. Thus far, the African race has exhibited extraordi- 
nary docility. Will this submission endure forever? God grant 
that it may ! But who, that has a knowledge of human nature, 
does not tremble in view of future insurrections, under the newly 
devised provocations of reviving the slave-trade, banishing the free 
blacks from the soil, and prohibiting emancipation ? Granting that 
insurrections will be always suppressed in the end, yet what terrific 
scenes of slaughter may they enact on a small scale ; what terror 
will they carry into thousands of households ; and what hatred and 
enmity will they provoke between the two races ! The future of 



122 

slavery in America will present, in all probability, a dark and 
gloomy history, unless our beloved brethren exert themselves, in 
season, to arrest its progress, and to provide for its extinction. 

The prevalent sentiment in Virginia, in 1832, was thus uttered 
in the Legislature by Mr. Chandler, of JVorfolk : "It is admitted 
by all who have addressed this house, that slavery is a curse, and 
an increasing one. That it has been destructive to the lives of our 
citizens, history, with unerring truth, will record. That its future 
increase will create commotion, cannot be doubted." 

VIII. Another mistake is, that notlmig can be done for the re- 
moval of slavery. Elevation is the grand demand of any, and 
every, scheme of emancipation. Can nothing more be done for 
the intellectual and moral elevation of the slaves? Much is, 
indeed, already in process of accomplishment ; but this work is left 
rather to individual Christian exertion, than to the benevolent ope- 
ration of public laws. The laws generally discourage education, 
and thus disown the necessity of enlarged measures for intellectual 
improvement. If it be said that education and slavery are incon- 
sistent with each other, the excuse is proof of the natural tendency 
of the system to degradation. Who will deny, however, that a 
great deal more might be done to prepare the slaves for freedom 
by private effort and by public legislation ? Can it be doubted that 
measures, favouring prospective emancipation, might be wisely 
introduced into many of the Slave States ? If there were, first, a 
willing mind, could there not be found, next, a practicable way ? 
Philip A. Bolling, of Buckingham, declared in the Virginia 
Legislature, in 1832, "The day is fast approaching, when those 
who oppose all action on this subject, and instead of aiding in 
devising some feasible plan for freeing their country from an 
acknowledged curse, cry ^impossible' to every plan suggested, will 
curse their perverseness and lament their folly." This is strong 
liinguage. It comes from one of the public men of your own State, 
and is adapted to awaken thought. 

IX. The last popular error I shall specify, is, that none of the 
slaves are now pre2?arcd for freedom. Whilst I am opposed to a 
scheme of immediate and universal emancipation, for reasons that 
need not be stated, I suppose that a large number of slaves are 
capable of rising at once to the responsibilities of freedom, under 
favouring circumstances, for example, in Liberia. Probably Nor- 
folk itself could furnish scores of such persons, or, to keep within 
bounds, one score. There must be thousands throughout the plan- 
tations of the South, who are, in a good degree, prepared to act 
well their part in free and congenial communities. Such a repre- 
sentation honours the civilizing power of slavery, and has an im- 
portant bearing on schemes of emancipation. 

SECTION VII. — SCHEMES OF EMANCIPATION. 

I am now prepared to follow your example in offering some re- 
marks on " emancipation laws." 



123 

Allow me here to repeat my regret that you have persisted in 
discussing this subject. First, because it is foreign to the topic of 
"Emancipation and the Church;" secondly, because the discussion 
involves speculations rather than principles ; and thirdly, because 
no living man can, on the one side or the other, deliver very clear 
utterances, especially without more study than 1, for one, have 
been able to give to the subject. Good, however, will result from 
an interchange of opinions. My chief motive in noticing this new 
part of your Rejoinder, on emancipation, is an unwillingness to 
allow your pro-slavery views to go forth in this Magazine without 
an ansAver. 

You are right, I think, in supposing that the best emancipation 
scheme practicable would embrace the following particulars : 

"(1.) A law prospective in its operation — say that all slaves 
born after a certain year, shall become free at the age of twenty- 
five. 

" (2.) Provision for the instruction of those to be emancipated in 
the rudiments of learning. 

" (3.) Provision for their transfer and comfortable settlement in 
Africa, when they become free." 

Your j^rs^ objection to this scheme is that, " in its practical work- 
ing, it would prove, to a very large extent, a transportation, and 
not an emancipatioyi law." Let us look at this objection. 

1. Many owners of slaves Avould go with them into other States, 
and thus no injury would be inflicted upon the slaves, whilst the 
area of freedom behind them would be enlarged. 

2. Many masters would make diligent and earnest efforts to pre- 
pare their slaves for freedom, on their plantations, even if other 
masters sold their slaves for transportation. 

3. If some, or many, of the masters were to sell their slaves, it 
would be doing no more than is done in Virginia, at the present 
time. The number of Virginia slaves transported annually into 
other States, has been estimated as high as fifty thousand. 

4. A compensation clause might be attached to the plan we are 
considering, with a prohibition against transportation. 

5. The objection is founded upon the supposition that only some 
of the States adopted the emancipation scheme. The objection 
would also be diminished in force, in proportion to the number of 
States adopting the scheme, because the supply of slaves may be- 
come greater than the demand. 

6. Some evils, necessarily attendant upon general schemes of 
emancipation, are more than counterbalanced by the greater good 
accomplished. If Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, Kentucky, 
Tennessee, and Missouri, were to adopt a scheme of prospective 
emancipation,* the general advantiige to those States, in a social, 
moral, intellectual, and economical point of view, would more than 
counterbalance the inherent and minor evils incident to the scheme. 

* Ought not such a scheme to hcsiin with these States? 



124 

The addition of six new States to tlie area of freedom would pro- 
bably outweigh all the trials incident to the transition period. 

An emancipation scheme, similar to that propounded, was tested 
in the Northern States, where it succeeded well ; and you could 
not have appealed to a better illustration of its wisdom. The num- 
ber of slaves transported could not have been very great, because 
the whole number in New England, New York, New Jersey, and 
Pennsylvania, was only about 40,000 in the year 1790, when these 
schemes were generally commenced, and the number of Africans 
in those States was more than double at the next census. 

On the whole, a prospective emancipation scheme, with or with- 
out a compensation or prohibitory clause, would, in the States 
named, do more, in the end, in behalf of the African race and the 
cause of freedom, than the inactive policy of doing nothing. 

Objection 2d. You object to the plan "on the ground that the 
slave race cannot be prepared for freedom by any short course of 
education, such as that proposed." 

1. Suppose that the Legislature of Virginia should enact that all 
slaves born after 1870, shall become free at the age of twenty-five. 
The course of education would be precisely as long as the process 
of nature allows. It would embrace tJie whole of the training period 
of an entire geiieration ; and with the intellectual and moral re- 
sources already in possession of the African race in Virginia, a 
general and faithful effort to elevate the young would result, under 
God, in a substantial advancement of condition, auguring well for 
freedom. 

2. Your own experiment with the two slaves is just in point. It 
shows how much can be done, on a small scale, and, if so, on a 
larger scale. These slaves were taught to read and write ; they 
were fitted for freedom at the age of thirty-two ; and they were 
then set free, as "good colonists for Liberia." Although they did 
not ultimately go to Liberia, perhaps their addition " to the number 
of free negroes in Virginia," was esteemed by them a higher 
benefit than it seems to you. They were, at any rate, qualified for 
freedom in Liberia. 

3. To the idea that all the emancipated slaves ought to be "com- 
pelled to go to Liberia," you present three difiiculties. (1.) "It 
is vain to expect to make good citizens for Liberia, by sending 
them there against their will, like convicts to a penal colony." I 
reply, that Liberia is becoming to the African race more and more 
an object of desire ; that there is no more compulsion in the case 
than their own best interests demands, as persons who, up to that 
period, are in the state of minors ; that the prospect of liberty in 
Liberia is very difi'erent from that of penal labour and suff"ering by 
convicts; and that, if your remark be true, that it is va'n to 
expect to make " good citizens for Liberia, by sending them against 
their will," is it not equally vain to expect to make good citizens 
of slaves by keeping them in slavery "against their will?" (2.) 



125 

You say that we deceive ourselves in speaking of Africa as " their 
native country," " their home." I reply that the race-mark in- 
delibly identifies the slaves with x\frica ; that their own traditions 
connect them with their fatherland ; that the decisions of the 
United States Supreme Court deny them to be "citizens" of this 
country ; and that their own affections are becoming stronger and 
stronger in favour of returning to Africa, as their minds become 
enlightened. (3.) Another obstacle to " compulsory expatriation," 
in your judgment, is, that it would " sunder ties both of family and 
affection." I reply, not necessarily either the one or the other, as 
a general rule. On the supposition of a compensation law, which 
is the true principle, there would be no sundering of family ties ; 
and as to ties of affection for their masters or friends left behind, 
every emigrant to our Western States expects to bear them. Be- 
sides, instead of a " compulsory expatriation," it would be virtually 
a voluntary return to the land of their fathers. 

Objection 3d. Your third objection to the proposed gradual 
emancipation scheme is, that you "do not see the least prospect of 
Liberia being able to do the part assigned to it in this plan for a 
long time to come." This is the only objection of any real weight. 

SECTION VIII. — LIBERIAN COLONIZATION. 

You will agree with me, if I mistake not, in three particulars : 

1. African Colonization is a scheme, founded in wise and far- 
reaching views of African character and destiny. The coloured 
race can never attain to social and political elevation in the United 
States. The experience of the past is a demonstration against the 
continuance of the two races in this country on terms favourable 
to the negroes ; and there is reason to believe that the future will 
be a period of increased disadvantage and hardship. The coloni- 
zation of the coloured people in Africa is, therefore, in its concep- 
tion, a scheme of profound wisdom and true benevolence. 

2. You will also agree with me in the opinion that the measures 
for Liberian Colonization maybe indefinitely extended. Territory, 
larger than the Atlantic slope, may be procured in the interior of 
Africa ; money enough may be obtained from the sale of the public 
lands, or from other national resources ; vessels are already on hand 
to meet the demands of the largest transportation ; and emigrants, 
of a hopeful character, and in large numbers, may be expected to 
present themselves, at the indicated time, in the providence of God. 
There are no limits to the plan of Liberian Colonization. Your 
own faith in its ultimate capabilities seems to be shaded with doubt, 
only in reference to the question of tiyne. 

3. Further. You will agree with me in the opinion that much 
more might he done, at once, in the actual working of the Liberian 
scheme. Among the coloured population in this country are large 



126 

numbers, both bond and free, who are superior to the average class 
of emigrants already sent out. 

SECTION IX. WHICH CLASS SHOULD BE SENT FIRST, THE FREE, OR 

THE SLAVES? 

In your judgment, we ought " to adhere to the course marked 
out by the founders of the Colonization Society, and attend first to 
the free people of colour; and only after our work here has been 
done, ought we to think of resorting to colonization as an adjunct 
to emancipation." 

1. The discussion of this issue is outside even of the new theme ; 
because the plan of emancipation, proposed by yourself, assiwies 
the colonization of the slaves as one of its main features. I submit 
that it is not in order to derty your own admissions. 

2. The colonization of slaves, when set free, is precisely in ac- 
cordance with the constitution of the American Colonization So- 
ciety. And the Society has been acting upon this principle from 
the beginning. The majority of emigrants belong to the class that 
were once slaves, and who have been made free Avith the object of 
removal to Africa, as colonists. 

3. I see no reason why the sympathy of philanthropy should be 
first concentrated upon the free blacks. This class of our popula- 
tion are, indeed, entitled to our warm interest and our Christian 
exertions to promote their welfare ; but why to an exclusive and 
partial benevolence ? If you reply, as you do, because " the con- 
dition of the free people of colour is worse than that of our slaves," 
then I beg leave to call in question the statement, and to invalidate 
it, in part, by your own declaration, that at least fifty thousand of 
the free blacks are more intelligent and better prepared for coloni- 
zation than can be found among the slaves. When the exigency 
of the argument requires you to sustain slavery, you depreciate the 
free blacks and make them "lower than the slaves;" but when 
colonization demands the best quality of emigrants, then you de- 
preciate the slaves and point to "fifty thousand" free blacks, who 
are superior to slaves. 

4. I might assign many reasons why, if Liberian colonization be 
a benevolent scheme, the race in slavery ought not to be excluded 
from its benefits. But, this point being assumed, as I have stated, 
an axiom of our problem, it is unnecessary to establish it by argu- 
ment. 

5. Let us compromise this issue on a principle of Christian 
equity, viz. : simultaneous efforts should be made to colonize the 
blacks who are already free, and those who may be set free for that 
purpose. You will not deny that there are hundreds and thousands 
of Christian slaves who, if emancipated, would make good citizens 
of Liberia. Why, then, should the social and political elevation of 
these men be postponed, and the good they might do in Africa be 



127 

lost, simply because there are free people of colour in the land, 
who are also proper subjects of colonization ? 

SECTION X. — WHAT THE COLONIZATION SOCIETY HAS DONE. 

Before the establishment of the Republic of Liberia, the future 
of the African race, in this country, was dreary and almost without 
hope. The mind of the philanthropist had no resting-place for its 
anxious thoughts ; the pious slave-holder lived in faith, without the 
suggestion of any effectual remedy ; and the negro race in America 
seemed doomed to labour for generations, and then sink away or 
perish. In God's good time, a Republic springs up in the Eastern 
world ! It is an African Republic; and composed mainly of those 
who once were slaves in America. What an event in the history of 
civilization ! Even in this last half century of wonders, it stands 
out in the greatness of moral and political pre-eminence. 

For some account of the results of African Colonization, I 
refer you to my Address at the opening of the Ashmun Institute, 
entitled '• God glorified by Africa." It is sufficient here to 
say that the Liberian Republic, with its institutions of freedom, 
contains about 10,000 emigrants from America, of whom 6000 
were once Southern slaves. Its schools, academies, and churches ; 
its growing commerce, improving agriculture, and intelligent legis- 
lation ; its favourable location. Protestantism, and Anglo-Saxon 
speech : all conspire to demonstrate the truth of the principles on 
which it was founded, and to develope a national prosperity rarely 
equalled in the history of colonization. 

In short, the Liberian Republic is a good ivork, ivell done. Laus 
Deo! 

section xi. — what may be reasonably expected of liberia. 

Let us be hopeful. Cheer up, Brother Armstrong! Ethiopia is 
yet to stretch out her hands unto God. An eminent Southern 
divine has well said, "I acknowledge the duty, which rests upon all, 
to hope great things and attempt great things, and look with holy 
anxiety at the signs of the times." 

I. Let us hoj)e great things. " Hope, that is seen, is not hope ;" 
and I may add, without irreverence, hope, that will not see, is not 
hope. Your views about the permanence of slavery prevent the 
access to your mind of large hopes from the Liberian scheme. In 
your Letters and Rejoinders, you several times express doubt whe- 
ther slavery in the United States is ever to end ! Nor does it 
seem to you very desirable that it should end. 

II. The people of God should attempt great things for the 
African race. Prosperity has attended African colonization thus 
far ; and under circumstances to stimulate to more active and ex- 
tended efforts. 



t^ 



128 

1. Assimilation. The great obstacle is, as you state, " the diffi- 
culty in assimilating such an immigration as we are able to send" 
to Liberia. 

The fact of an "indiscriminate immigration," composed chiefly 
of slaves, accomplishing so much in Liberia, is very encouraging in 
regard to the possibility of success on a larger scale. 

The emigrants to be sent out by the scheme of emancipation 
under review, would be of a higher character than the class already 
there. One of the features of this plan involves " provision for the 
instruction of those to be emancipated in the rudiments of learn- 
ing." Education is, under God, a mighty elevator. The question, 
whether a people shall be raised up in the scale of intelligence or 
>i be allowed to remain unlettered and in gross ignorance, decides 
the destiny of nations. It will certainly decide the destiny of 
African colonization. The proposed plan contemplates a long in- 
terval of preparation, an interval of tliirty-seven years, during 
which time a new generation is to come forward under a full sys- 
tem of " Christian appliances." A very different class of emi- 
grants will, therefore, be made ready for colonization. Nor is it 
chimerical to suppose that great elevation of character would 
attend measures for the instruction of the young slaves, under the 
kindly intercourse, supervision, and example of one and a quarter 
millions of white members of the Church of Christ, and fifteen 
tliousand ministers of the Gospel.* These emigrants, thus prepared 
for freedom, would be prepared for assimilation. 

The difficulty of foreign immigration to this country is in its 
diversity and irreligion. Speaking foreign tongues, trained to dif- 
\/ ferent habits and customs, debased by Roman superstition, or cor- 
rupted by German infidelity, the mass of our immigrants are far 
more difficult to fuse into our existing population than would be 
the Africans into their oivn race at Liberia. In the case of colo- 
nization in Liberia, the population would be homogeneous, of a 
more intelligent order than the original population, and under the 
influences of the Christian religion. 

African character is improving in Liberia. Instead of deteriora- 
ting, as when in contact with the white race, it is now gaining ad- 
miration in the political world. What has been wanting to raise 
the negro character is education, the habit of self-reliance, and a 
fair opportunity for development on a field of its own, unhindered 
by contact with the white race. An illustration of the elevating 
power of a removal to a congenial field, is seen in the case of thou- 
sands of impoverished whites in the slaveholding States. This 
class, doomed to poverty, and often to degradation, by the law of 
slavery, rise to influence, wealth, and importance, when they emi- 

* This is the best estimate I can make of the number of white communicants and 
mhiisters in the Southern churches. 



129 

grate to new States. A similar influence will bless the negro race, 
when separated from contaminating influences, and disciplined to 
bear its pa,rt among the governments of the world. 

In Liberia, new communities would be formed, and settlements 
established in difl"erent parts of the extending republic, to meet the 
demands of emigration. "Assimilation" is easier under circum- 
stances of diff"usion than of aggregation. As, in our own country, the 
facility of acquiring land in the new Territories and States, pro- 
motes the welfare of the emigrants, and fixes them in homes 
comparatively remote from cities and overgrown districts, so the 
Liberian scheme proposes to establish its large accessions of emi- 
grants in independent and separate communities, increasing in 
number with the demand for enlargement. 

2. The " deep-rooted dist7-ust of the capacity of their own people 
for safely conducting the affairs of government" need give a friend 
of colonization no concern whatever. The race in this country has 
never had the opportunity of proving its capacity to take charge 
of public interests. The only experiment hitherto made has been 
successful. The government of Liberia is administered with as 
much skill as that of most of the States in our Union, and the 
republic is growing in importance among the nations of the earth. 
The Africans will learn soon enough to put confidence in Liberia, 
and to prefer their own administration to that of any other people 
in America. 

3. Your "nJe of three' will hardly work in reference to the 
developments of God's providence. "If now it has taken thirty- 
four years to place a colony of ten thousand on the coast of Africa, 
when can we reasonably calculate that our work will be done" with 
hundreds of thousands ? Verily, by the Armstrong rule, no cal- 
culation would be "reasonable." Virginia herself could by ciphered 
out of her present civilization and glory, by writing down, for the 
basis of i-he problem, the original Jamestown efforts at colonization. 
The "rule of three," irrelevant as it has always been, will become 
less and less geometrical, "as ye see the day approaching." How 
will it work when " nations are born in a day ?" 

It must be admitted that, although the rule is unfair in such a 
discussion, no human sagacity can scan the problem of African co- 
lonization. It is certain, however, that many of our wisest men 
regard colonization as the most hopeful adjunct to emancipation. On 
the question of time, there is room for difference of opinion ; and 
so there is, indeed, on all points. The late Dr. Alexander, than 
whom no man stood higlier in Virginia for wisdom and far-reach- 
ing views, thus sums up his views of the capacity of Liberia to re- 
ceive the coloured race of America : " If Liberia should continue to 
flourish and increase, it is not so improbable, as many suppose, that 
the greater part of the African race, now in this country, will, in 
the inscrutable dispensations of Providence, be restored to the 

9 



130 

country of their fathers." Some of our most distinguished political 
characters have expressed the same opinion.* 

There are various providential aspects, which encourage large 
expectations from Liberian colonization, in its connection with the 
removal of American slavery, and which serve to show that an 
emancipation movement, of some kind, cannot be far off. 

III. Besides hoping great things, and attempting great things, 
we should " look with holy anxiety at the signs of the times." 
Providence is a quickening instructor. 

1. One of the signs of the times is, the general sentiment of the 
civilized ivorld in favour of measures of emancipation. Slavery 
has existed in the United States for two centuries, during which 
period it has been overruled, in many ways, for great good to the 
slaves. But can it long survive the pressure of public sentiment at 
home and abroad ? When all Christian and civilized nations are 
opposed to its continuance, must it not, before long, adopt some 
active measures tending to its abolition ? 

2. Another sign of the times is, the demonstration of African 
capahilify, made by the Republic of Liberia. The light of this 
Republic spreads far into the future. It illuminates the vista of 
distant years, and cheers the heart of philanthropy with the sight 
of a great and rising nation. The moral power of the successful 
enterprise on the shores of Africa, is like the voice of God speak- 
ing to the children of Israel to "go forward." 

3. The exploration of Africa, just at this period of her history, 
is another cheering sign for colonization. Preparations for a great 
work are going on for that dark continent. Whatever developes 
Africa's resources, is a token of good to her descendants every- 
where. Elevate the continent, and the race is free. These explo- 
rations will serve, in part, to satisfy the public mind in reference 
to the healthfulness and fertility of the country, back from the sea, 
and its adaptation to all the purposes of colonization. 

4. Another sign of approaching crisis, favourable to some im- 
portant results, is in the South itself. After a long period of 
repose, it presents tokens of internal divisions, of excitement, and 
of extreme measures. The revival of the African slave-trade, 
which is a popular plan in six States, bids defiance to God and 
nations. The preparations, commenced in Maryland and elsewhere, 
to drive out the free blacks or reduce them to slavery ; the move- 
ment to prohibit emancipation by legislative enactment ; the laws 
against the instruction of the slaves ; all the recent political ad- 

* An enlightened advocate of colonization, as an atijunct to emancipation, need not 
maintain tliat tlie wliole African race in this conntry must go to Liberia. Many of 
them will jn-obably remain beliind in this country, to struggle with adversity, and 
perhaps at last to die away. Dr. Alexander's language goes as far as is necessary to 
meet the case. " The greater part of the African race" will probably be restored to 
Africa. 



131 

varices of slavery, including the judicial decision denying the rights 
of citizenship to free blacks, and carrying slavery into the national 
territories ; and especially the lowering of the tone of public senti- 
ment on the whole subject of slavery and emancipation, to which 
even ministers have contributed : all this has the appearance of an 
impending crisis, and points to some great result in Divine Provi- 
dence, in spite of all the opposition of man ; yea, and by means 
of it! 

5. The times magnify Colonization as an instrument of civiliza- 
tion. Behold the new States on the shores of the Pacific, and the 
rising kingdoms in Australia. Behold the millions who have peo- 
pled our own Western States. Colonization has never before dis- 
played such power, or won triumphs so extensive and rapid. Nor 
has the black man ever attained such dignity as by emigrating to 
Africa. Colonization is one of the selected agencies of God to 
promote the civilization of the human race. 

6. It also seems clear that God had some special purpose of grace 
and goodness to accomplish Avith the slave race, on a large scale. 
The Africans have been torn from their homes, brought to a land 
of liberty and religion, civilized and elevated here, to a good degree, 
and yet, when set free in the land, disowned as citizens, and sub- 
jected to a social and political condition, so disparaging as to pre- 
clude the hope of fulfilling their mission in America. Everything 
points to Africa as the field of their highest cultivation and useful- 
ness. 

,7. The concurring providences of God throughout the earth are 
harbingers of the times of renovation and of millennial glory. The 
fulfilment of prophecy is at hand. Progress and revolution mark 
the age. The end is not distant, when " ITe, whose right it is, 
shall reign;" and "Ethiopia shall stretch forth her hands unto 
God." 

With si";ns like these flashinrr across the heavens, it is no time 
for the watchers of the African sky to sleep at their observatories; 
much less, if they are awake, is it a time to doubt. Providence 
calls upon the friends of the race to hope great things, and to 
attempt great things. It points to Liberian Colonization as the 
most hopeful scheme ever devised for the elevation of Africa's de- 
graded children, and for their emancipation from the long American 
bondage. Work, and see ! Trust, and try ! 

SECTION XII. — EFFECTS OF ENTERTAINING THIS EMANCIPATION 

SCHEME. 

' In your judgment, the discussion of emancipation is calculated 
to "do harm." Why, then, did ray good brother introduce the 
question, and in a form that seemed to demand an answer ? The 
whole discussion is evidently foreign from the original issues be- 
tween us, as most readers readily see. 



</" 



132 

For myself, I do not believe, that a calm and Christian discus- 
sion of this vast social and political question will do any injury at 
all. It needs investigation. It requires it before God and man. 
The interests of the white race and of the black race, the welfare 
of the present and succeeding generations, conscience, political 
economy, safety, the public opinion of the civilized world, religion, 
Providence, — all invite serious attention to the question of emanci- 
j pation. And why should a rational discussion interfere with "the 
religious instruction and gradual elevation of the African race ?" 
Its natural effect, one would think, would be to stimulate effort 
in this very direction, at least with Christian and sober-minded 
people. 

The Free States have, unquestionably, been remiss in their du- 
ties to the free coloured population. I confess, with shame, this 
neglect and injustice. Human nature is the same everywhere. 
The free blacks have, however, many privileges. They have access 
to public schools ; they have churches in abundance ; and if they 
could enjoy social equality, they would long ago have been " assi- 
milated" in our communities. You ask, "Are you colonizing them 
4 in Africa ?" I reply, that hitherto they have refused to go, not- 
withstanding the most earnest and persevering expostulations. The 
same class of fanatics who have urged immediate and universal 
emancipation at the South, have decried colonization at the North, 
and successfully resisted its claims among the free people of colour. 
There are evidences that a change of opinion is now silently mak- 
ing progress among them in favour of colonization. May God 
help us to do more in their behalf, and to roll away the reproach, 
of which you faithfully remind us, and for doing which I give you 
my thanks. 

SECTION XIII. — THE AYORK AND THE WAY. 

There is no difference of opinion between us about the work and 
the way, although I believe that we ought to keep the end in view, 
as well as apply the means. Why work in the dark ? The great 
obligation is the improvement of the slaves, their intellectual and 

V moral elevation. The slaves, in my judgment, and, I suppose, in 
yours, ought to be taught the rudiments of learning. Our mission- 
aries to the heathen place Christian schools among the effective 
instrumentalities of promoting religion and every good result. 
What can be gained by keeping the slaves in ignorance, it is diffi- 
cult to conjecture. Ought not the Bible to be placed in their 
hands, in order that they may "search the Scriptui'es" and possess 
the opportunity of a more complete improvement of their rational 
powers? A committee, in their report to the Synod of South 

J Carolina and Georgia, in 1833, state : " The proportion that read 
is infinitely small ; and the Bible, so far as they can read it for 



133 

themselves, is, to all intents, a sealed book." Since 1833, progress 
may have been made in the instruction of the slaves in the rudi- 
ments of knowledge. And yet, in view of the fact that several of 
the States, including Virginia, have, within this period, passed 
stringent laws prohibiting the slaves from being taught to read, it 
is difficult to ascertain the nature and extent of this progress, if 
indeed there be any. In some States, I fear there has been an in- 
terposition that leads to retrogradation. 

You are right in saying that the most effectual way of promoting 
emancipation is "through the agency of a gradually ameliorating 
slavery, the amelioration taking place as the slaves are prepared 
to profit by it." What strikes a stranger, at the present time, is 
that the laws have, of late years, become more harsh, especially in 
the matter of instruction, than ever before. An " ameliorating 
slavery" would naturally extend the educational and general privi- 
leges of the slaves. Has there ever been any public legislative 
action having; in view the enlightenment of the slaves ? Might not 
Christian citizens accomplish much more in ameliorating the code, 
by enlarging the privileges of the slaves in conformity with the re- 
commendations of Mr. Nott? 

The remedial suggestions of Sir. Nott, understood to be received 
with favour by a number of gentlemen at the South, are of much 
value. If generally adopted, the work of amelioration would be 
carried forward with an increase of power altogether unknown in 
the annals of slave civilization. Among his admirable suggestions, 
which are generally elaborated with much good sense, are the fol- 
lowing: "There maybe supposed admissible in the progress of 
amelioration, first, some extension of franchises to those remaining 
slaves ; and secondly, an opportunity of full emancipation to such 
as may choose it : thus giving to all some share in providing for 
their social well-being, and opening the path for individual progress 
and advancement." 

An ameliorating system is the only, and the safest, way to eman- 
cipation ; and in such a system, religious and moral instruction is 
the strongest element. The plan of emiancipation we have been 
considering could have no prospect of a successful issue, unless, 
in the course of thirty years, a great advance could be made, 
under God, in the intellectual and social condition of the slaves. 
The intermediate work is Christian elevation ; after that, emanci- 
pation. 

I am far from undervaluing the general tendency of Southern 
civilization towards the improvement of the slaves. Great credit 
belongs to those of our self-denying brethren who have made special 
efforts in their own households and on neighbouring plantations. 
Let this work go on, and thousands of slaves will be prepared for 
freedom, in Liberia, in the course of another generation. This is 
the work, and this is the way ! 



134 



SECTION XIV. — THE CHURCH AND ADVISORY TESTIMONY. 

After this long digression, of vour own seeking, I return to the 
original topic of the relation of the Church to emancipation. The 
Church has a right to enjoin the performance of all the relative 
duties specified in the Scriptures, and to give general counsel, or 
testimony, in regard to the termination of the relation itself, as a 
moral and lawful end. 

Why a right to give counsel ? Because, as I have attempted to 
show, the relation being abnormal and exceptional, its ultimate dis- 
solution is fairly inferred, as a moral duty, from the general spirit 
and principles of the word of God. So far as the dissolution of 
the relation requires the action of the State, the Church has no 
right to meddle with it in any form, either as to the plan, or the 
time. The Church has simply the right to advise and urge her 
members to prepare their slaves for freedom, as soon as Providence 
shall open the way for it. 

Why may not the Church enjoin emancipation? Because slave- 
holding being right or wrong, according to circumstances, the 
Church can neither give a specific rule of permanent and univer- 
sal obligation, nor can it take cognizance of the circumstances of 
each particular case, which must be adjudicated by the mind and 
conscience of each individual under his responsibility to God. 

The Church, therefore, whilst it cannot prescribe political mea- 
sures of emancipation, or the time of emancipation, has a perfect 
right to say to its members, as our General Assembly did, in 
1818: 

"We earnestly exhort them to continue, and, if j-iossihie, to increase 
their exertions to effect a total abolition of slavery. We exhort them to 
suifer no greater delay to take place in this most interesting concern, than 
a regard to the public welfare truly and indispensably demands." 

" And we, at the same time, exhort others to forbear harsh censures, 
and uncharitable reflections on their brethren, who unhappily live among 
slaves, whom they cannot immediately set freej but who are reallj/ using 
all of their injiucnce and cdl their endeavours to bring them into a state 
of freedom, as soon as a door for it can he safely opened." 

Or, as the Synod of Virginia declared in 1802 : 

" We consider it the indispensable duty of all who hold slaves to pre- 
pare, l>y a suitable education, the young among them for a state of free- 
dom, and to liberate them as soon as they shall appear to be duly qucdi- 
fied for that high privilege." 

In thus maintaining the right of the Church to give advisory tes- 
timony, there is scarcely need to add, that the Church is bound to 
proceed with the wisdom which should ever characterize a court 
of the Lord Jesus Christ. 



135 



SECTION XV. — THE THIRD LETTER. HISTORY OF AKTI-SLAVERY 

OPINIONS. 

1. I do not conceive that my third letter ^vas based upon the 
slightest misapprehension. The whole strain of Bishop Hopkins's 
apology for slavery implies, like your own, that the institution may 
lawfully exist among a people, forever, without any concern. This 
I do not believe ; and this the Christian Church has not believed, 
either in earlier or later times. I protest against such doctrine, in 
however guarded language it may be expressed or concealed. 

In the time of Chrysostom, who flourished after Constantino, 
about A.D. 400, emancipation was encouraged throughout the Em- 
pire ; more wso than my brother Armstrong seems to encourage it 
now, in the interval of fourteen centuries. There is no reason to 
infer from Chrysostom's fanciful interpretation of 1 Cor. 7 : 21, 
that he was an advocate of the perpetuity of slavery. In some re- 
spects, that distant age was in advance of our own. 

2. You think that in two instances I confound things that differ. 
(1.) But I did not understand you as saying that the Christian 
anti-slavery philanthropists of England were infidels, but simply 
that they acted quoad hoc on infidel principles. I proved that their 
principles were not those of infidelity ; that such an idea was pre- 
posterous.* (2.) Nor did I confound slaveholding with the Afri- 
can slave-trade. The paragraphs from Mr. Bancroft's history em- 
braced both subjects, so that one could not be well separated from 
the other. Besides, the traffic and the system sustain a close re- 
lation to each other. The abettors of perpetual slavery are always 
prone to defend the slave-trade, as is lamentably witnessed at the 
present time, in the extreme South. 

SECTION XVI. — CONCLUDING REMARKS. 

On reviewing our respective positions on this interesting ques- 
tion, I am confirmed in the correctness of those with which I set 
out, viz. : that " slaveholding is right or wrong according to cir- 
cumstances ;" that the General Assembly had a right to exhort 
the members of the Church to prepare their slaves for freedom 
whenever Providence should open the door for it ; that the history 
of anti-slavery opinions shows that the Church has never regarded 
slavery as an institution to be perpetuated ; that it is wise for us, 
as citizens, to examine the question of emancipation in all its bear- 
ings ; and that the border States, if no others, miglit advantageously 
commence the work speedily, on the plan of a prospective scheme, 
with Liberian colonization as its adjunct. 

* HoBBES, one of the leaders of infidelity, maintained that every man being by 
nature at war with every man, the one has a perpetual right to reduce the other to 
servitude, when he can accomplish the end. 



136 

On the otlier hand, if I do not misunderstand yon, you have tiikon 
the following positions: 1. " Slaveholding is not a sin in the sight 
of God." 2. The Church has no right even to advise her members 
to elevate their slaves with a view to their freedom, and that the 
testimonies of the General Assembly, down to 1845, were wrong, 
and ought never to have been uttered. 3. Slaveholding has always 
existed in the Church without any reproach, from the earliest times, 
until Christian philanthropy, adopting the principles of Infidelity, 
has lately agitated the matter. 4. It is expedient to do nothing 
in the way of emancipation at present, if, indeed, the slaves are 
ever to be free; and the South had better not send any more slaves 
to Liberia until the North has sent its free blacks. 

By the expression of these sentiments, I fear that, without in- 
tending it, you have lowered the tone of public sentiment wherever 
your influence extends, and have impaired the obligations of con- 
scientious Christians on this great subject. John Randolph declared 
in Congress, " Sir, I envy not the heart nor the head of that man 
from the North, who rises here to defend slavery from principle." 
This remark has no direct application, of course, to youi'self ; but 
many readers, I fear, will claim, in your behalf, the credit of doing 
the very thing that John Randolph denounced. 

I agree with you about the evils of the course of the fanatical 
abolitionists ; and not any more than yourself do I desire to unite 
my honour with their assembly.* 

I stand upon the good old ground, occupied by the Presbyterian 
Church from time immemorial. Believing it to be scriptural ground, 
I have endeavoured to defend it ; and shall, by God's grace, con- 
tinue to defend it on all fit occasions, against extreme views either 
at the North or at the South. I further believe that my beloved 
brethren at the South occupy, in the main, the same conservative 
position, — a position which has enabled our Church to maintain her 
scriptural character and her integrity. I do not expect that my 
brethren, either at the North or South, will agree with me in all 
the side issues about plans of emancipation, which you have thrown 
into the argument without any logical authority, and to which I 
have replied according to the best light given m.e. 

Praying for spiritual blessings upon Africa and her descendants, 
and that the cause of truth, liberty, and righteousness may prevail 
from shore to shore, 

I am yours fraternally, 

C. Van Rensselaer. 

• Notwitlistandini: Dr. Armstrong's strong condemnation of the abolitionists, he 
practically, but unintentionally, adopts two of their leading principles. 1. He dis- 
courages, at least for a long period, the emancipation of slaves, with a view of send- 
ing them to Liberia. So far as this generation is concerned. Dr. Armstrong and 
the abolitionists are, on this point, at unity. 2. He maintains that Africa ought not 
to be regarded as the country and home of tlie coloured race ; but that America is as 
much their home as it is his or mine. This is a favourite and fundamental principle 
of the abolitionists, from which they argue emancipation upon the soil. 



137 



NOTE. DR. BAXTER ON SLAVERY. 

Since writing the foregoing Article, a friend has forwarded to the Pres- 
byterian Historical Society, Dr. Baxtei''s pamphlet on Slavery. I have 
read, with great interest and satisfaction, this remarkable production of 
my revered theological instructor. It breathes the spirit of his great 
soul. 

1. The principles of Dr. Baxter's pamphlet are not at all inconsistent with 
the Assembly's testimony of 1818, which he had a share in preparing and 
adopting. The general views are coiocident with those of that immortal 
document, with such difference only as was naturally to be expected in 
looking at the subject from a different standpoint. 

2. In the statement of the doctrine of slaver ij, Dr. Baxter fully agrees 
with me, as will be seen by the following quotations from his pamphlet : 

'* The relation of the master is lawful, as long as the circumstances of 
the case make slavery necessary." p. 5. 

"There is no consistent ground of opposing abolition, without asserting 
that the relation of master is right or wrong according to circumstances, 
and that the examination of our circumstances is necessary to ascertain 
whether or not it be consistent with our duty." pp. 9, 10. 

" It therefore appears plain, that the Apostle determines the relation of 
master to be a lawful relation, [Here Dr. Armstrong would have stopped, 
but Dr. Baxter adds.] I only mean that slavery is lawful, whilst jieces- 
sary ; or that it is lawful to hold slaves, whilst this is the hest thing that 
can he done for them." p. 15. 

" I believe that the true ground of Scripture, and of sound philosophy, 
as to this subject, is, that slavery is lawful in the sight of Heaven, whilst 
the character of the slave makes it necessary." p. 2o. 

Dr. Armstrong will see that my doctrine of circumstances, and nothing 
else, was in the mind of Dr. Baxter. This was the Assembly's doctrine 
of 1818. Dr. Baxter was no wiser in 1836, " eighteen years afterwards," 
because he was scvipturally wise in 1818. I have a firmer persuasion 
than ever, that the great mass of my brethren at the South agree with Dr. 
Baxter, and not with Dr. Armstrong. 

3. Dr. Baxter does not hesitate to speak out, like a man and a Chris- 
tian, against the idea of the perpetuity of slavery. 

"For ray part, I do not believe that the system of slavery will or can 
be perpetual in this country." p. 16. 

" Christianity in its future progress through the world, with greater 
power than has heretofore been witnessed, I have no doubt will banish 
slavery from the face of the whole earth." p. 17. 

" The application of Christian principles to both master and servant, 
will hasten the day of general emancipation." p. 23. 

Dr. Baxter uses no ifs, like a man afraid of his shadow, but boldly 
declares the common conviction of the Christian, and even political, world 
in regard to the desirableness and certainty of ultimate emancipation. 

4. Dr. Baxter's pamphlet is specially directed against the abolition doc- 
trine of immediate emancipation; and his object is to show that slavery 
can only be abolished by preparing the slaves for freedom under the in- 
fluences of Christianity. I find nothing in the pamphlet on the question 
of Church testimony. There is no doubt, in my own mind, that he ad- 
hered to his views of 1818, on this, as on other points. God bless his 
memory and example ! " Being dead, he yet speaketh." 

10 \ « 



INDEX. 



THREE LETTERS TO A CONSERVATIVE. 

Dr. Armstrong's First Letter. On the Proper Statement of the Scriptural 

Doctrine of Slavery, .......... 3 

Dr. Armstrong's Second Letter. On Emancipation and the Church, . 8 

Dr. Armstrong's Third Letter. On the Historical View of Anti-Slavery 

Opinions, 14 

THREE CONSERVATIVE REPLIES. 

Dr. Van Rensselaer's First Reply. On the Proper Statement of the Scrip- 
tural Doctrine of Slavery, ......... 23 

Dr. Van Rensselaer's Second Reply. On Emancipation and the Church, 37 
Dr. Van Rensselaer's Third Reply. On the Historical Argument for Sla- 
very, ............. 53 

REJOINDERS. 

Dr. Armstrong's First Rejoinder. On the Proper Statement of the Scrip- 
tural Doctgioe of Slavery, . . , . . . . . .67 

Dr. Armstrong's Second Rejoinder. On Emancipation and the Church, 

Schemes of Emancipation, Colonization, &c. &c., . . . .81 

REPLIES TO REJOINDERS. 

Dr. Van Rensselaer's First Reply to the First Rejoinder. On the Proper 

Statement of the Scriptural Doctrine of Slavery, 99 

Dr. Van Rensselaer's Second Reply. On Emancipation and the Church, 

Schemes of Emancipation, Colonization, &c., . > . . .112 



